2023 0 Supreme(SC) 557

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, 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

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.

(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