The Supreme Court has rejected the review petitions filed by the Union of India and three state governments against the implementation of enhanced pay scale for judicial officers as per the recommendation of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC).
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli, while upholding its July 27 verdict of last year, observed that there was no apparent error on the face of the record and reiterated the directions issued in its 2022 judgment.
The Apex Court further directed the Union government and the States of Haryana, Manipur and Uttar Pradesh to pay the arrears to the officers in three instalments – 25 percent in three months, another 25 percent in next three months and balance by June 30.
On July 27 last year, the Apex Court had ruled that it was necessary to revise the payment structure for judicial officers at the earliest as they were not covered by the Pay Commission constituted by the States and the Centre.
The top court of the country had delivered this judgment last year on a petition filed by the All India Judges Association for constitution of All India Judicial Commission to review service conditions in the district judiciary.
The Union Government had filed a review against this verdict on the grounds that the objections raised by it in the main petition with respect to the applicability of SNJPC recommendations were not duly considered by the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court had constituted the Second National Judicial Pay Commission in 2017 for reviewing the pay scale and other conditions of Judicial Officers belonging to the subordinate judiciary all over the country.
The Bench of Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Abdul Nazeer had appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice P.V. Reddy as Chairman of the Commission and former Kerala High Court Judge and Senior Supreme Court lawyer R. Basant as its member.
The Union Government had opposed the SNJPC’s proposal to apply a uniform Index of Rationalisation of 2.81 (highest IOR as per 7th Central Pay Commission applicable to the level of Secretary to Govt of India) for all levels in the hierarchy of the Judicial Officers instead of applying progressively higher IOR to different levels.
The Centre pointed out that the nature of responsibilities discharged by Judicial Officers were not same at all levels and thus, the application of uniform IOR was not appropriate.
It had also objected to the analogy drawn from the IOR of 2.81 allowed for High Court Judges contending that a High Court Judge has a fixed pay scale as opposed to a span-based scale. The petition added that the duties and responsibilities of judicial officers were no match to that discharged by High Court judges.
The Union of India suggested that the pay matrix based on uniform multiplication factor of 2.81 for all three levels as recommended by SNJPC need to be rationalised and graded. It further suggested that the pay matrix based on IOR of 2.67 and 2.72 may be worked out on the scientific principle followed by the 7th Pay Commission.
Raising objection to the uniform multiplier of 2.81 (same multiplier applied to judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts) recommended by SNJPC, the States of Haryana, Manipur and Uttar Pradesh also filed review petitions against the Apex Court judgment.
The State of Manipur submitted that if the order was not reviewed, it would amount to equating higher district judiciary with constitutional courts. The States emphasised that the Court ought to have considered the aspect of rationalisation and progressive upgradation.
The State of Haryana, inter alia, submitted that as per the recommendations of the Shetty Commission initial pay of the civil judges is 12.5% higher than IAS officers, but the SNJPC recommendations makes it almost double that of IAS officers. It also submitted that the implementation of the order dated 27th July, 2022 would substantially burden the State exchequer.
Among other things, the State of Uttar Pradesh claimed that the implementation of SNJPC recommendation would increase the salary of judicial officers disproportionately and compel the state governments and the Centre to face such demand in the future to apply the same multiplier for revising salary of Government employees.
The Apex Court noted that SNJPC had considered all factors governing the service of judicial officials, including their roles and responsibilities to arrive at the multiplier of 2.81.
It said the first and foremost principle to be kept in view was the extent of rise in the salary of High Court Judge with effect from January 1, 2016 i.e., after the report of VII CPC which fixed the pay of the Secretary to Government of India at Rs 2,25,000.
The Court opined that there was no pressing need to reduce the quantum of multiplier adopted by the SNJPC so as to marginally reduce the gap between entry level IAS officers (in Junior and Senior time scales) and Judicial Officers (Civil Judge, Junior and Senior Divisions) since the starting pay must be one that offers an incentive to talents youngsters to join judicial services.
A lower multiplier that 2.81 would part from SNJPC’s principles that the extent of pay of judicial officers must be commensurate with the increase in the pay of High Court judges, which has been accepted by the Apex Court, it noted.
It said the principle applied by JPC that the pay of judicial officers should be higher when compared to All India Services Officers of corresponding rank had been approved by the Apex Court in 2002
In 1993, the Apex Court had rejected the comparison of service conditions of the judiciary with that of the administrative executives.
The argument that a uniform IOR would equate district judiciary with constitutional courts was erroneous, since all Judges across the hierarchy of courts discharged the same essential function.
The Apex Court clarified that the uniform multiplier indicated uniform increment in pay and not uniform pay at all levels.
Commenting on the role of district judiciary in preserving rule of law and the need to ensure adequate emoluments and pension for it, the Apex Court said the District Courts and courts forming a part of the district judiciary discharged a prominent role in preserving the rule of law. Public confidence in the judicial system sustained the credibility of the judiciary.
It further said that the district judiciary had a significant role in generating and fostering public confidence.
The standards of ethics and professionalism expected of judges were more rigorous than those applied to other services/professions.
Ensuring adequate emoluments, pension and proper working conditions for the members of the district judiciary has an important bearing on the efficiency of judicial administration and the effective discharge of the unique role assigned to the judiciary.”
The Apex Court also pointed out that, while the Government officers have the benefit of the 7th Central Pay Commission scales since 2016, even after seven years, the judicial officers were still awaiting a revision.
It concluded that additional financial burden could not be a ground for review.
Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji, Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Advocate Vyom Raghuvanshi appeared for All India Judges Association.
(Case title: Union of India vs All India Judges Association)