1. Enforcement of Shetty Commission recommendations on service conditions of judicial officers — compliance monitoring by Supreme Court. (Para 1 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2006 Supreme(SC) 1510
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJI., C.K. THAKKER, P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.
All India Judges Asson. and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and ors. - Respondents
I.A. No. 103 and I.A. Nos. 117, 128, 130 with 175, 134-138, 141, 144, 152 with 139 and 157, 167-168, 169 with 161, 177, 178, 180, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189 and I.A. No. 2 in I.A. No. 152 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989 with Cont. Pet. (C) No. 141 of 2003 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989, Cont. Pet. (C) No. D17733 of 2006 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989, S.L.P. (C) No. 16347 of 2004, S.L.P. (C) No. 18200 of 2004, S.L.P. (C) No. 19527 of 2004, S.L.P. (C) No. 3421 of 2005 with I.A. Nos. 71A and 142 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989.
Decided on : 20-07-2006
State governments must implement court-mandated commission recommendations regarding judicial officers' pay and allowances. Financial constraints or parity with other government employees cannot be used as justification for non-compliance with these judicial directives.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Implementation of Commission Report on judicial pay and allowances - Directions for State Governments to implement recommendations regarding rent-free accommodation, medical facilities, and other allowances - Financial constraints of the State or parity with other government employees are not valid grounds for non-compliance with court directions (Paras 12, 37).
(B) Benefits for Judicial Officers - Medical facilities for serving and retired officers must be at par with members of the State Legislative Assembly - Rent-free accommodation or House Rent Allowance to be provided as per the recommendations in the report and previous judicial directions (Paras 8, 9).
(C) Retrospective effect - Monetary benefits for other allowances are to be given with effect from 1st November, 1999 (Para 16).
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed seeking the implementation of a commission report regarding the pay and allowances of judicial officers. Despite previous court orders, several states failed to file compliance affidavits or implemented the recommendations partially, leading to disparities in medical facilities, housing, and retirement benefits. The court examined various compliance affidavits and identified shortcomings in the implementation of benefits across multiple states.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that many states provided benefits as per general state rules rather than the specific recommendations of the commission report. It rejected the arguments that financial constraints or the lack of similar benefits for other state officers justified the non-compliance.
Issues: Whether State Governments are obligated to implement the commission's recommendations exactly as directed, regardless of prevailing state rules or financial limitations.
Ratio Decidendi: Court directions for the implementation of a commission report regarding judicial benefits are mandatory. Financial constraints or the fact that other officers of the State Government are not receiving similar facilities are irrelevant for the purpose of compliance with the court's directions.
Result: Chief Secretaries of the states are directed to personally ensure compliance and file affidavits by 31st August 2006.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Directed chief secretaries to personally ensure compliance and file affidavits by 31st August 2006; listed matter for further compliance. (Para 5 , 7 )
3. What is the responsibility of chief secretaries in ensuring compliance with the court's directions?
Chief secretaries must personally ensure compliance and file affidavits reporting such compliance within the stipulated time. (Para 7 )
4. Must state governments implement all accepted Shetty Commission recommendations exactly?
Yes, subject to modifications in the judgment, all other recommendations of the Shetty Commission are accepted and must be implemented fully. (Para 9 )
JUDGMENT :
The order dated 7th February, 2006, required the State Governments/Union Territories to implement the recommendations of the Shetty Commission in respect of the aspects mentioned therein within eight weeks and file compliance report in the form of affidavits of the Chief Secretaries failing which it was indicated that personal appearance of the Chief Secretaries and/or Secretary, Union of India, may be directed.
2. In respect of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, at present, the question of compliance does not arise since no judicial cadre exists in desirable that now, without any further delay, the separation, as aforesaid, takes place in the four States at the earliest and implemented.
3. We request Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to take up this matter at the highest level so that the separation comes into effect without any further delay and preferably before the courts in those States close for Puja vacations. The State Governments and all their functionaries are directed to fully cooperate with Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
4. Copy of this order shall be sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice and to the Hon'ble Chief Ministers of all the four States.
5. List the matter in the month of November, 2006, for compliance.
6. Despite the afore-noticed order dated 7th February, 2006, the compliance affidavits have not been filed by as many as twelve States, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Nagaland, Orissa, Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu and Uttaranchal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh state that the Shetty Commission Report in respect of the aforesaid three matters have been implemented and compliance affidavit will be filed during the course of the day. The state of affairs existing in these States is most unfortunate. The compliance report was required to be filed within eight weeks, which expired in April, 2006, and now, we are in July, 2006. Instead of directing the personal appearance of the Chief Secretaries of these twelve States, for the present, we direct Chief Secretaries to personally ensure compliance of the directions dated 7th February, 2006. It will be the personal responsibility of each of the Chief Secretaries not only to ensure compliance but to file affidavits reporting compliance on or before 31st August, 2006.
In re: ASSAM:
8. An affidavit of compliance dated 13th July, 2006, has been filed by the Chief Secretary of the State. It has been pointed out by Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned amicus curiae, that compliance in respect of Rent- free accommodation, House Rent Allowance and medical facilities is not in terms of the Shetty Commission Report and the directions of this Court. The Chief Secretary shall personally ensure that the compliance is in terms of the Shetty Commission Report and the directions of this Court and file an affidavit by 31st August, 2006. The aspect of allowances pertaining to water/electricity charges, Conveyance and Transfer Grant stated to be pending with the State Government would also be finalised by the State Government. The non-compliance is said to be as under:
(i) Rent free accommodation and H.R.A. (House Rent Allowance) being given as per State Rules (details not given) and not as per Justice Shetty Commission recommendation and paragraph 35 of the judgment in All-India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2002 (4) SCC 247) at page 273;
(ii) Medical facilities allowed as per State Rules and not as per Justice Shetty Commission recommendation which should be at par with State M.L.As. - both for serving as well as retired officers. [para 19.111 at page 150, Volume III]; and
(iii) The allowances pertaining to water/ electricity charges, conveyance and Transfer Grants are reportedly still being examined by the State Government as per paragraph (4) (page 2) of the affidavit.
9. Like-wise, with reference to affidavits filed by the State Governm
