Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 557

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
All India Judges Association – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 643 of 2015 With Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6471-6473 of 2020 With Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 711 of 2022, 36 of 2023, 37 of 2023, 38 of 2023, 39 of 2023, 40 of 2023, 848 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 643 of 2015
Decided on : 19-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. (A.C.) Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Adv. Ms. A. Sregurupriya, Adv. Ms. Arti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Kanti, Adv. Mr. Gourab Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. VP Singh, Adv. Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv. Mr. Subhro, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Adv. Mr. Venkata Supreeth, Adv. Mr. Deepak Prakash, AOR Mr. Pawan Kr. Dabas, Adv. Mr. Raneev Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Vajpayee, Adv. Ms. Divyangna Malik, Adv. Mr. Shyam Nair, Adv. Mr. Vardaan Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Vishnu Priya, Adv. Ms. Shwetam, Adv. Mr. Rahul Lakhera, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Mohd Akhil, Adv. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Wasim Qadri, Adv. Mr. Anandh Venkataramni, Adv. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Venkataramani, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Mansi Sood, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mrs. Vipasha Singh, Adv. Mrs. Geetanjali Bedi, Adv. Ms. Shivani, Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Aditeya Bali, Adv. Mr. Remish Lakra, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Mr. James P. Thomas, Adv. Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR Ms. Naveen Goel, Adv. Mr. Kartik Kaushal, Adv. Mr. Rakshit Jain, Adv. Mr. Adithya Koshy Roy, Adv. Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR Mr. Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, AOR Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.r, Adv. Mr. Likhi Chand Bonsle, Adv. Mr. Rahat Bansal, Adv. Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv. Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Ms. Swathi H. Prasad, Adv. Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Sahu, Adv. Mr. Debabrata Dash, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. For M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. K V Girish Chowdary, Adv. Mr. T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Sai Shashank, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Arora, Adv. Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Payal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shivang Jain, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Amrita Verma, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv. Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akshay Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vinayaka S Pandit, Adv. Mr. Rajan Parmar, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv. Ms. Divija Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, A.A.G. Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Ms. Manicka Priya, Adv. Mr. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, A.A.G. Ms. Ankita Choudhary, A.A.G. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Ms. Shreya Saxena, Adv. Ms. Yamini Singh, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. General, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mrs. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Mr. Nihar Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Md Sontu Mia, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Adv. Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathore, Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. C Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, AOR Ms. Pallavi, Adv. Mr. Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Abbas, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Joydip Roy, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Uday B. Dube, AOR Mr. K.Parameshwar, AOR Ms. Arti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Kanti, Adv. Mr. M. V. Mukunda, Adv. Mr. Deepak Prakash, AOR Mr. Pawan Kr. Dabas, Adv. Mr. Raneev Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Vajpayee, Adv. Ms. Divyangna Malik, Adv. Mr. Shyam Nair, Adv. Mr. Vardaan Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Vishnu Priya, Adv. Ms. Shwetam, Adv. Mr. Rahul Lakhera, Adv. Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Mr. K.Sudhakar Reddy, Adv. Mr. K. Sriram, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur Kashyap, AOR Mr. Rohit Rajershi, Adv. Mr. Aman Bajaj, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) A unified judiciary necessarily entails that service conditions of Judges of one State are equivalent to similar posts of judges of other States – Judiciary must possess inherent power to compel payment of those sums of money which are reasonable and necessary to carry out its mandated responsibilities and its powers and duties to administer justice.
(2) To be truly unified both in form and in substance, there must be integration in terms of pay, pension and other service conditions between District Judiciary, High Courts and Supreme Court.
(3) Multiplier which applies to pay must also apply to pension – Necessary amendments must be carried out in Service Rules of Judicial Officers across all jurisdictions.

Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Service Conditions of District Judiciary – [Article 50 of Constitution of India] – India has a unified judiciary under scheme of Constitution – A unified judiciary necessarily entails that service conditions of Judges of one State are equivalent to similar posts of judges of other States – Efficient functioning necessarily requires Judges of calibre and capacity to be provided with right incentives and promotion opportunities to maintain high level of functioning of judiciary – Separation of powers demands that officers of Judiciary be treated separately and distinct from staff of legislative and executive wings – Judges are not employees of State but are holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial power – Parity cannot be claimed between staff of legislative wing and executive wing with officers of judicial wing – Judicial officers receive pay which is not at par with executive staff – Doctrine of inherent powers mandates that judiciary must possess inherent power to compel payment of those sums of money which are reasonable and necessary to carry out its mandated responsibilities and its powers and duties to administer justice – This doctrine is only logical conclusion of separation of powers and ensures that independence of Judiciary is secured. (Paras 22, 24 and 25)
(B) Service Law – Service Conditions of District Judiciary – [Articles 125 and 221 of Constitution of India] – Judicial Officers have been working without a pay revision for nearly 15 years – Independence of Judiciary is part of basic structure of Constitution – Independence of District Judiciary must also be equally a part of basic structure of Constitution – For most litigants in this country, as only physically accessible institution for accessing justice is District Judiciary, independence of district judiciary assumes even greater significance – Without fair and speedy trial, remaining rights including fundamental and constitutional rights will not be enforced in a manner known to law – If these instrumental rights themselves are hindered, then all other rights within Constitution would not be enforceable – Together, Courts constitute unified judicial system performing for core and essential function of administering justice – To be truly unified both in form and in substance, there must be integration in terms of pay, pension and other service conditions between District Judiciary, High Courts and Supreme Court – Once salary of District Judge is pegged against High Court Judge, any increase in salary of Judges of High Court must reflect in same proportion to Judges in District Judiciary. [High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954] (Paras 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 37)
(C) Service Law – Service Conditions of District Judiciary – Recommendation of Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) on pay structure – SNJPC has recommended that pay matrix model which was adopted by 7th Central Pay Commission be adopted for Judicial Officers as well – This is desirable as it simplifies the matter of pay for Judges – As recommendation of SNJPC is only to bring pay structure in conformity with 7th Central Pay Commission, there cannot be any objection on these recommendations – Pay structure of Judicial Officers be modified suitably, reflecting recommendations suggested by SNJPC – Recommendation that multiplier/index of rationalization as suggested by SNJPC be accepted – Pay of judicial officers be increased as per Table-I annexed to Order dated 27.07.2022 – An additional increment can be given to a retiring officer when he is not in service on the date of accrual – Increment is a benefit for year of service already rendered – Last pay, for the purposes of calculation of pension should include increment payable to Judicial Officer – Recommendations of Commission in so far as it notionally grants increment for the purposes of pension is completely justified – Calculation of pension must notionally include increment for the purposes of calculation of pension – High Courts to amend applicable rule to state that increment which becomes due to judicial officer on the day after his retirement may be notionally included in calculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-. (Paras 46, 50, 52 and 55)
(D) Service Law – Service Conditions of District Judiciary – Recommendation of Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) – Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr Div) be given on the basis of relaxed norms which may be devised by High Courts, with reference to suggestions of Commission – Stagnation of careers of judicial officers due to administrative delays causes loss of morale and enthusiasm in vital stages of their careers, where they are entitled to be considered for career progression – Commission suggested that process of grant of ACP should be initiated 3 months in advance from date on which judicial officers will be completing 5/10 years and financial benefits should be paid to judicial officer within a period of 6 months after judicial officer steps into 6th/11th year of Service – Commission recommended that if grant of ACP is delayed for every year, one additional increment shall be granted for every year of delay subject to adjustment with ACP arrears – Recommendations of the Commission are reasonable and merit acceptance – Recommendation of Commission is that Judges of Family Court also be entitled to benefit of Selection Grade and Super Time Scale as well – Commission further recommends that quarters also be given to them from general pool of accommodation – Recommendation of Commission is accepted – Commission has not recommended any change in current percentage of pension, fixed at 50% of last drawn pay for pension and 30% for last drawn pay for family pension – When no change is recommended, no real objections can be raised regarding recommendation – Revision of pay must also reflect in revision of pension – Multiplier which applies to pay must also apply to pension – Recommendation of Commission is only in furtherance of parity – Recommendation of Commission is only in furtherance of parity – Commission has recommended payment of family pension @ 30% to eligible family member after death of spouse – This benefit has been given in light of Rule 54 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which grants similar benefits to members of central civil services – This recommendation is also accepted as it has been granted to members of central civil services – Quantum of family pension also worked out in same manner as quantum of pension is worked out – Last recommendation is that on income limit prescribed by States to be eligible for family pension – Minimum limit prescribed by Commission was Rs. 30,000/- – This limit is reasonable but it must be left to discretion of States to prescribe a higher limit which is more beneficial to judicial officers – Recommendation is accepted – Necessary amendments must be carried out in Service Rules of Judicial Officers across all jurisdictions. (Paras 69, 70, 71,72, 73,79, 80, 90, 92, 95, 97 and 112)
Facts of the case:
Vital to the judicial system is the independence of the judicial officers serving in the District Judiciary. To secure their impartiality, it is important to ensure their financial security and economic independence. To this end, at instance of All India Judges Association, this Court, in 1993 found the need to state that there must be a Judicial Pay Commission, separate and independent from Executive in order to ensure that the system of checks and balances are in place, and Judiciary has a say in their pay and service conditions.
Findings of Court:
Revised rates of pension, which have been approved by this Court, shall be payable from 01.07.2023. For payment of arrears of pension, additional pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits as well, following the Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, it is directed that 25% will be paid by 31.08.2023, another 25% by 31.10.2023, and remaining 50% by 31.12.2023.
Result : Directions issued. Matter listed for next hearing.

JUDGMENT :

	INDEX
2.	The SNJPC’s Report and the Orders of this Court
3.	Submissions of Counsel
4.	Principles Evolved for Judicial Pay, Pension and Allowances
	I. Uniformity in Designations and Service Conditions
	II. Separation of Powers and Comparison with Political Executive
	III. Independence of the District Judiciary is Part of the Basic Structure
	IV. Judicial Independence and Access to Justice Ensures Implementation of Part III of the Constitution
	V. Equivalence of Judicial Functions of District Judiciary and Higher Judiciary
	V.0 Recommendations on pay
	V.1 Orders of this Court on SNJPC Recommendations on Pay
	V.2 Consideration of Recommendations on Pay
	I. Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity with the All India Pattern (Recommendation 44.1)
	II. New Pay Structure as per Pay Matrix Model (Recommendation 44.2, 44.3)
	III. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform Application (Recommendations 44.4-44.6)
	IV. Increments (Recommendation 44.7, 44.11)
	V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale to Pay Matrix System (Recommendations 44.8, 44.9, 44.10)
	VI. Application of Recommendations from 01.01.2016 (Recommendation 44.12)
	VII. Status of Compliance of Directions in Order dated 27.07.2022 (Modification of Recommendation No.44.13)
	VIII. DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central Government (Recommendation 44.14)
	IX. Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr Div) (Recommendation 44.15(i))
	X. Delay in Grant of ACP (Recommendation 44.15(ii))
	XI. Changes in Percentage of District Judges (Selection Grade) and District Judges (Super Time Scale) (Recommendation 44.16)
	XII. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding Judges of Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts (Recommendation 44.19)
	XIII. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra (Recommendation 44.18)
	XIV. Minimum Remuneration to Special Judicial Magistrates (Second Class) and Special Metropolitan Magistrates (Recommendation 44.19)
6.	RECOMMENDATIONS ON PENSION, GRATUITY AND AGE OF RETIREMENT ETC
7.	Considerations of Recommendations on Pension, Gratuity etc.
	I. No Change in Percentage of Pension for Retirees On or After 01.01.2016 (Recommendation 39.1)
	II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be 50% of the Last Drawn Pay
	III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in Pay Matrix (Recommendation No.39.3, 39.4)
	IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers who Retired Prior to 01.01.1996 (Recommendation no. 39.5)
	V. Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while calculating pension (Recommendation no. 39.6)
	VI. Recommendations on Family Pension (Recommendation Nos. 4.1 to 4.4)
	VII. Recommendations on Additional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension (Recommendation Nos. 21.1 to 21.4)
	VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity (Recommendation Nos. 21.1 to 21.4)
	IX. Recommendations on Retirement Age
	X. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in Case of Death
	XI. Recommendations on Assistance to Pensioners
	XII. Recommendations on Abolition of New Pension Scheme
8.	Consequential Directions

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J

1. INTRODUCTION TO PAY COMMISSIONS

1. The District Judiciary¹[No longer should this Court refer to the District Judiciary as ‘subordinate judiciary’. Not only is this a misnomer because the District Judge is not per se subordinate to any other person in the exercise of her jurisdiction but also is disrespectful to the constitutional position of a District Judge. Our Constitution recognizes and protects a Dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 557

Cases Referred (23)

Related Judgments

All India Judges Association VS Union of India - 2023 4 Supreme 135

All India Judges Association VS Union Of India - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1930

Cherian Varghese VS State Of Kerala - 2023 Supreme(Ker) 26

In Re: Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period In District Judiciary And High Court VS . - 2025 5 Supreme 129

All India Judges Association VS Union of India - 2024 1 Supreme 605

State Of Kerala, Represented By The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home VS P. Muraleedharan - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 357

Union of India VS All India Judges Association - 2023 Supreme(SC) 1275

S. N. Derashri S/o Shri P.r.Derashri vs State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Law And Legal Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 2590

Retired Chief Engineer Welfare Society of Rajasthan VS State of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur - 2024 Supreme(Raj) 984

JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR GUPTA vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS - 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36673