The court upheld the application of the multiplier of 2.81 and above and the adoption of the Pay Matrix Method by the SNJPC, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the mean pay percentages and ensuring adequate remuneration for the members of the district judiciary.

ORDER :

Abbreviations

• Second National Judicial Pay Commission -SNJPC

• First National Judicial Pay Commission -FNJPC

• Seventh Central Pay Commission -VIIth CPC

• Index of Rationalisation -IoR

1. Delay condoned.

2. Applications for listing the review petitions in open Court are rejected.

3. By its order dated 27 July 2022 in “All India Judges Association v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 643/2015, this Court held as follows :

“15. One of the main objections to the revision of pay structure as proposed by SNJPC, is the application of the multiplier of 2.81 and above. But this objection has already been taken by some of the States and is liable to be rejected for the two reasons, namely, (i) that the 7th Central Pay Commission has applied a multiplier of 2.81 in respect of certain categories of All India Service Officers; and (ii) that Justice Padmanabhan Committee actually applied a multiplier of 3.07.

16. As a matter of fact, SNJPC, before making its recommendations, considered three modules, i.e., (1) Master Pay Scale Method; (2) Pay Matrix Method; and (3) Fixed Pay Method. After examining the advantages and disadvantages of all the three modules, the SNJPC has adopted Pay Matrix Method, as it had already been adopted by the 7th Central Pay Commission. A fourth module, namely, Fixed Pay Pattern was also examined but was not accepted, as it was a new concept and had not been tested anywhere else.

17. Having considered the Report of the SNJPC, the objections of the Union and the State Governments and the submissions of the learned amicus, we are of the view that the revision of pay structure as recommended by SNJPC, indicated in table-1 appended, hereto shall be accepted.”

4. Review has been sought of the above directions on the ground that the objections raised by the Union of India in its reply filed in W.P. (C) No. 643 of 2015 in respect of the applicability of the recommendations of the SNJPC were not duly considered by the court. The objections of the Union of India are extracted below:

“[Para 5(i)] “The rational for this progressive IOR through the hierarchy has been explained by the 7th CPC in para 5.1.19 of its Report. The commission has clearly pointed out that the rationalization has been achieved by applying “Index of Rationalization” from PB2 onwards on the premise that with enhancement of levels from PB 1 to 2 to 3 and onward, the role, responsibility and accountability increases at each step in the hierarchy. The commission has mentioned that the proposed pay structure reflects the same principle and, hence, the existing entry pay at each level corresponding to successive grade pay has been enhance by an “Index of Rationalization”.

However, this fundamental principle of enhanced responsibility and increased accountability with each progressively higher post and pay level has not been followed by the SNJPC. Instead, it has adopted uniformed IOR of 2.81 for all the levels in the hierarchy of the Judicial Officers which incidentally happens to be highest IOR as per 7th CPC. Therefore, this non application of progressively higher IOR to different levels does not stand the test of logic because the nature of responsibilities discharged by Judicial Officers across the hierarchy cannot be construed to be the same. Moreover, the IOR of 2.81 which has been recommended is applicable to an officer of the level of secretary to GOI. It is pertinent to add here that no judicial officer was drawing pay in an equivalent pay scale of secretary to GOI. Further, drawing an analogy from IOR of the 2.81 as allowed in a case of High Court Judges is also not tenable because, firstly, the scale of a judge of a High Court is a fixed scale and is not a span-based scale and, most importantly, duties and responsibility of the judicial officers are no match to the onerous responsibility discharged by High Court Judges.

Therefore, the pay matrix based on the uniform multiplication factor of 2.81 for all three levels as recommended by the SNJPC needs to be