Supreme Court of India
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 26
- Decided
- 4 January 2024
- Disposal
- Directions issued
- Bench
- D Y CHANDRACHUD
Holding
The Court upheld the SNJPC's recommendations on allowances, modifying only the House Building Advance, Higher Qualification Allowance, and foreign travel provisions, and ordered implementation through a High Court‑level committee.
Summary
The All India Judges Association filed a writ petition challenging the allowances recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) for judicial officers and retired judges. The Union and several State governments objected, arguing that the recommendations would impose a financial burden, should be governed by state rules, and should be equivalent to other government officers. The Supreme Court examined each of the 21 allowances, rejected the financial‑burden and state‑rule objections, and emphasized that the judiciary is a distinct constitutional function requiring uniform service conditions. The Court accepted the SNJPC recommendations with specific modifications – permitting House Building Advance for purchases from private individuals, rejecting the restriction on higher‑qualification increments at the ACP stage, and deleting foreign travel to SAARC countries. It also directed the creation of a Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary in every High Court to implement the orders, and set deadlines for payment of arrears. The petition was disposed by issuing detailed directions.
Issues considered
- The validity of the SNJPC's recommendations on allowances for judicial officers and retired judges.
- Whether objections based on financial burden, state‑specific rules, and equivalence with other government officers are legally tenable.
- Whether specific recommendations (e.g., House Building Advance, Higher Qualification Allowance, foreign travel) should be modified or rejected.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 142, s. Article 32
Subjects
District JudiciarySecond National Judicial Pay CommissionJudicial allowancesHouse Building AdvanceHigher Qualification AllowanceFinancial burdenUniform service conditionsJudicial independenceArticle 142Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary
Judgment
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 327 : 2024 INSC 26
All India Judges Association
v.
Union of India & Ors
(Writ Petition (Civil) No 643 of 2015)
04 January 2024
[Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI,
J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Allowances granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers
by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC).
Headnotes
Judiciary – District Judiciary – Recommendations by Second
National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) regarding various
allowances for judicial officers and retired judicial officers – 21
allowances considered by SNJPC in its report:
Held: As regards House Building Advance (HBA), recommendation
of SNJPC that HBA be available to judicial officers also for the
purchase of a ready built house from private individuals subject
to such safeguards as may be prescribed by the State Govt.
in consultation with their respective High Courts – Modification
accepted – Payment of Children Education Allowance as
recommended, approved – Recommendation for discontinuation
of City Compensatory Allowance and no recovery to be made,
accepted – Recommendations w.r.t Concurrent Charges Allowance;
payment of conveyance/transport allowance; Earned Leave
Encashment; Electricity and Water Charges; Hill Area/Tough
Location Allowance; Home Orderly/Domestic Help Allowance;
Newspaper and Magazine Allowances; Risk Allowance; Robe
Allowance; Special Pay for Administrative Work; Telephone
Facility; Transfer Grant accepted –As regards Higher Qualification
Allowance, the restrictive condition imposed by SNJPC in regard
to non-extension of advance increments at the ACP stage,
not accepted – Subject to this clarification, recommendations
accepted – Further, out of the five components of house rent
related allowances, two components-Furniture and Air Conditioner
Allowance and Maintenance introduced for the first time – All the
* Author
328 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
components suggested are accepted – As regards, Leave Travel
Concession/Home Travel Concession, recommendations are on
a continuum and accepted, except for foreign travel to SAARC
countries which shall be deleted – Substantive recommendations
made w.r.t Medical Allowance/Facilities, accepted – As regards
sumptuary allowance, recommendation for increase of 2.25 times
based on the yardstick of annual inflation and increase of points
in the consumer price index, accepted – Committee for Service
Conditions of the District Judiciary (CSCDJ) be constituted
in each High Court for overseeing the implementation of the
recommendations of the SNJPC as approved – Composition,
functions of the Committee and the issues to be considered,
enumerated – States and Union Territories to act in terms of the
directions expeditiously – Disbursements on account of arrears of
salary, pension and allowances due and payable to judicial officers,
retired judicial officers and family pensioners be computed and
paid on or before 29.02.2024 – CSCDJs to monitor compliance
and submit report on or before 07.04.2024. [Paras 20, 24, 27,
29, 32, 34, 37, 40, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 55, 65, 67, 69, 71, 74, 77,
79, 81, 83-87]
Judiciary – District Judiciary – Allowances for judicial
officers, retired judicial officers – Objections raised that
revision of rates/new allowances will result in an increased
financial burden and expenditure; the rules governing the
payment of allowances prescribed by each State for their
own administrative establishment must be followed; and
the benefits which are provided to judicial officers must be
equivalent to those provided to other Government officers:
Held: Submissions urged on behalf of the States have been
considered in several previous judgments of this Court – Judicial
service is an integral and significant component of the functions of
the State and contributes to the constitutional obligation to sustain
the rule of law – State is duty bound to ensure that the conditions
of service, both during the tenure of office and after retirement,
are commensurate with the need to maintain dignified working
conditions for serving judicial officers and in the post-retirement
emoluments made available to former members of the judicial
service – Members of the district judiciary are the first point of
engagement for citizens who are confronted with the need for
dispute resolution – The conditions in which judicial officers across
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 329
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
the country are required to work are arduous – The work of a
judicial officer is not confined merely to the working hours rendered
in the course of judicial duties in the court – That apart, members
of the district judiciary have wide ranging administrative functions
which take place beyond working hours, especially on week-ends
– Further, there is a need to maintain uniformity in the service
conditions of judicial officers across the country – Thus, the plea
that rules of each State must govern pay and allowances, lacks
substance – Judges are not comparable with the administrative
executive – They discharge sovereign state functions and just like
the Council of Ministers or the political executive and their service
is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive
which carries out the decisions of the political executive, judges
are distinct from judicial staff, and are thus comparable with the
political executive and legislature – Wholly inappropriate to equate
judicial service with the service of other officers of the State – The
functions, duties, restrictions and restraints operating during and
after service are entirely distinct for members of the judicial service
– Plea of equivalence rejected yet again. [Paras 13, 17 and 18]
Case Law Cited
All India Judges Association v Union of India [2002]
2 SCR 712 : (2002) 4 SCC 247; All India Judges
Association v Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 720; All India
Judges Association v. Union of India (II) [1993] 1 Suppl.
SCR 749 : (1993) 4 SCC 288; State of Maharashtra v
Tejwant Singh Sandhu SLP(C) 1041 of 2020; Bharat
Kumar Shantilal Thakkar v State of Gujarat & Anr. [2014]
4 SCR 1147 : (2014) 15 SCC 305 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
District Judiciary; Second National Judicial Pay Commission;
Allowances granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers;
Children Education Allowance; City Compensatory Allowance;
Concurrent Charges Allowance; Conveyance/transport allowance;
Earned Leave Encashment; Electricity and Water Charges; Hill
Area/Tough Location Allowance; Home Orderly/Domestic Help
Allowance; Newspaper and Magazine Allowances; Risk Allowance;
330 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Robe Allowance; Special Pay for Administrative Work; Telephone
Facility; Transfer Grant; Higher Qualification Allowance; House Rent
Allowances; Furniture and Air Conditioner Allowance; Maintenance;
Leave Travel Concession/Home Travel Concession; Medical
Allowance/Facilities; Sumptuary Allowance, Committee for Service
Conditions of the District Judiciary; Article 142.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL/INHERENT/EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE
JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.643 of 2015.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
With
SLP (C) Nos.6471-6473 of 2020, 29232 of 2018 and Contempt Petition
(C) Nos.711 of 2022, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 848 and 1338 of 2023 in Writ
Petition (C) No.643 of 2015.
Appearances for Parties
K.Parameshwar (Amicus Curiae), Ms. Kanti, Ms. Arti Gupta, MV
Mukunda, Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Advs.
K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Shailesh Madiyal, B.K. Satija, Dr. Hemant
Gupta, Barun Kumar Sinha, Saurabh Mishra, Amit Anand Tiwari,
A.A.Gs., K N Balgopal, Gurminder Singh, Adv. Gen./Sr. Advs.,
Lenin Singh Hijam, Adv. Gen, Kuldeep Parihar, D.A.G., Gourab
Banerjee, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Wasim Quadri, Jaideep Gupta, Huzefa
Ahmadi, Sunil Kumar, V. Giri, Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sanjay Parikh,
Sr. Advs., Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Dhruv
Sharma, VP Singh, Venkata Supreeth, Gopal Jha, Umesh Kumar
Yadav, Deepak Prakash, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta,
Varun Varma, Md. Apzal Ansari, Milind Kumar, Dr. Reeta Vasishta,
Mohd Akhil, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Rajan Kumar Chourasia,
Ms. Sonali Jain, Chitvan Sinhal, Kartikaya Aggrawal, Abhishek
Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Pashupathi
Nath Razdan, Rushab Aggarwal, Sharath Nambiar, Astik Gupta,
Vaibhav Sabharwal, Japnish Singh Bhatia, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Anmol Chandan, Vatsal Joshi, Annirudh Sharma-II, Ishaan Sharma,
Kanu Agarawal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kumar
Verma, Piyush Beriwal, Varun Chugh, Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar,
Sarthak Karol, Harish Pandey, Apoorv Kurup, Shashwat Parihar, Mrs.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 331
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
Priyadarshini Priya, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Mahesh Thakur, Mrs.
Geetanjali Bedi, Shivamm Sharrma, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek
Mohanty, Gagan Gupta, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Ms. Rucha A.
Pande, Manish M. Veeraragavan, Ms. Gautami Yadav, Ms. Pranjal
Chapalgaonkar, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Kunal Chatterji, Ms.
Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Kshitij Singh, Ms. Nidhi Mittal,
Ms. Aparna Arun, Ms. Anchal, Akhil Hasija, Ms. Gauri Goburdhun,
Ms. Kavita Jha, Rajeev Kumar Jha, Aditeya Bali, P. I. Jose, Anupam
Mishra, James P. Thomas, Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, Amit
Sharma, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Mrs. Shashi
Pathak, Nikhil Goel, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra,
Aniket Patel, Anupam Raina, Sunando Raha, Nikhil Palli, Nishant
Kumar, Krishnanand Pandeya, Dev Pratap Shahi, Raghavendra
S. Srivatsa, T. G. Narayanan Nair, A. Radhakrishnan, Arjun Garg,
Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Niranjan Sahu, Umakant
Misra, Debabrata Dash, Abhijit Pattnaik, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Ashok
Mathur, Mukul Kumar, Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, Sovon
Siddhanta, Saravanan A., J. Vasanthan, K.G. Kannan, Mukesh
K. Giri, Mandaar Mukesh Giri, Santosh Krishnan, Ms. Deepshikha
Sansanwal, Anil Shrivastav, Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar
Bose, Saurabh Tripathi, Manish Kumar, Mahesh Kumar, Sumeer
Sodhi, Nikhilesh Kumar, Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Ms. Devika Khanna,
Mrs. V D Khanna, VMZ Chambers, Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv
Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Ms. Deepanwita
Priyanka, Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Payal Gupta, Shivang Jain, Ms.
Nitikaa Guptha, Ms. Monica Anand Kumar, Ms. Sabarni Som, Ravi
Bakshi, Sandeep Rana, Ms. M. Venmani, S. Gowthaman, Ms. Saima
Firoze, Abhisar Thakral, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Anando Mukherjee,
Shwetank Singh, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar,
Abraham Mathew, Rebin Vincent Gralan, Sunny Choudhary, Sandeep
Sharma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat
Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Raavi Sharma, Ms. Yamini
Singh, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Shrama, Ms. Rajkumari
Divyasana, R. Rajaselvan, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Nirnimesh Dube,
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms.
Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Shibashish Misra, Karan Sharma,
Ajay Pal, Mohit Siwach, Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms.
Vani Vandana Chhetri, Ms. Zinnea Mehta, Naman Jain, Sabarish
Subramanian, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C Kranthi
Kumar, Naman Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, Ms. V Keerthana, Ms. Tanvi
332 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Anand, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Sudarshan Singh
Rawat, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, S Sunil,
Sunny Sachin Rawat, Parijat Sinha, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,
Chirag M. Shroff, Aravindh S., Abbas, Ahantham Henry, Ahantham
Rahen Singh, Mohan Singh, Kumar Mihir, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, T.
V. Ratnam, Ankur Kashyap, Joydip Roy, Gopal Jha, Umesh Kumar
Yadav, Shreyash Bhardwaj, Karthik S.D., Uday B. Dube, Deepak
Prakash, Pawan Kr. Dabas, Kamal Singh Bisht, Raneev Dahiya,
Nachiketa Vajpayee, Ms. Divyangna Malik, Ms. Merlyn J. Rachel,
Ms. Vishnu Priya, Vardaan Kapoor, Rahul Lakhera, Rahul Suresh,
Aviral Saxena, Piyush Thanvi, Mohammed Imran, Gautam Narayan,
Ms. Asmita Singh, Harshit Goel, Sujay Jain, K.V. Vibu Prasad,
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Ritwick Parikh, Karun Sharma, Ms.
Rajkumari Divyasana, R. Rajaselvan, Gopal Jha, Umesh Kumar
Yadav, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Santhosh Kumar Puppala, Ms.
Shireesh Tyagi, Ms. Pranali Tayade Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Contents*
Objections by the Union Government and State
Governments:............................................................................ 6
Allowances recommended by the SNJPC ................................... 13
1 House Building Advance (HBA) ........................................... 13
2 Children Education Allowance (CEA) ................................... 15
3 City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) .................................. 16
4 Concurrent Charges Allowance ............................................ 17
5 Conveyance/Transport Allowance (TP) ................................ 18
6 Dearness Allowance ............................................................. 20
7 Earned Leave Encashment .................................................. 20
8 Electricity and Water Charges .............................................. 21
9 Higher Qualification Allowance ............................................. 22
10 Hill Area/Tough Location Allowance ..................................... 24
* Ed. Note : Pagination is as per the original judgment.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 333
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
11 Home Orderly/Domestic Help Allowance ............................. 25
12 House Rent Allowance and Residential Quarters ................ 26
13 Leave Travel Concession(LTC)/Home Travel
Concession (HTC)................................................................. 31
14 Medical Allowance/Medical Facilities ................................... 33
Fixed Allowance .................................................................... 36
Medical Facilities and Reimbursement ................................ 36
15 Newspaper and Magazine Allowances ................................ 39
16 Risk Allowance ..................................................................... 40
17 Robe Allowance .................................................................... 40
18 Special Pay for Administrative Work .................................... 41
19 Sumptuary Allowance ........................................................... 42
20 Telephone Facility ................................................................. 44
21 Transfer Grant ...................................................................... 46
Institutionalization ......................................................................... 47
1. By its orders dated 27 July 2022, 5 April 2023 and 19 May 2023, this
Court has accepted the recommendations of the Second National
Judicial Pay Commission1, chaired by Justice P V Reddy, former
Judge of this Court of India on the revision of pay and pension for
judicial officers.
2. The abovementioned orders have delineated inter alia the history
of the constitution of the SNJPC, and the principles underlying
judicial pay, allowances and pensions. The contents of the earlier
orders shall not be repeated here. This judgment pertains to the
allowances which have been granted to judicial officers and retired
judicial officers by the SNJPC. At this stage, it would be necessary
to note that save and except for three allowances, where there was
a modification, the allowances recommended by the First National
Judicial Pay Commission known as the Shetty Commission were
affirmed by this Court in All India Judges Association v Union of
India2. Thereafter, all allowances which were recommended by the
1 “SNJPC”
2 (2002) 4 SCC 247
334 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
subsequent pay commission, namely the Judicial Pay Commission3
called the Justice Padmanabhan Committee were accepted by this
Court in its decision reported as All India Judges Association v
Union of India4.
3. Besides Mr K Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae, all the State governments
and Union Territories have been given an opportunity to furnish their
objections to the allowances, as proposed by the SNJPC. Objections
have been filed on the record of this Court.
4. In the course of hearing, the following counsel have appeared on
behalf of the States, or as the case may be, the Associations of
Judges :
S. No. Name of the counsel Appearing for
1 Mr Gaurab Banerji, Sr. Adv. AIJA
2 Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv High Court at Calcutta
3 Mr Gopal Jha, Adv All India Retired Judges
Association
4 Ms Gautami Yadav, Adv Maharashtra State Judges
Association
5 Mr Sunny Choudhary Madhya Pradesh
6 Mr Mukesh Kumar Verma Andaman & Nicobar
7 MrJoydip Roy, Adv. All India Judges Association
8 Ms Madhumita Bhattacharjee West Bengal
9 Mr Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Uttar Pradesh
10 Mr Shuvodeep Roy Assam and Tripura
11 Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha Bihar
12 Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG Tamil Nadu
13 Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv Tamil Nadu
14 Mr. Karan Sharma, Adv. Punjab
15 Dr Manish Singhvi, Sr, Adv Rajasthan
16 Mr V N Raghupathy, Adv Karnataka
17 Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv Gujarat
18 Mr. Sriharsha Pichara, Adv Telangana
3 “JPC”
4 (2010) 14 SCC 720
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 335
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
19 Mr Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar Manipur
20 Ms K Enatoli Sema Nagaland
21 Ravi Bakshi, Adv Himachal Pradesh
22 Mr Alim Anvar, Adv. Kerala
23 Mr Amit Kumar, AAG Meghalaya
24 Mr Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv Uttarakhand
25 Mr Deepak Prakash, Adv Kerala Judicial Officers
Association.
5. In addition, we have had the benefit of considering intervention
applications by the State of Maharashtra.
6. The Amicus Curiae has tendered a note summarizing the position.
The SNJPC considered a total of twenty-one allowances in its report.
These allowances are tabulated below:
1. House Building Advance 12. House Rent Allowance
a. Residential Quarters
b. HRA
c. Furniture &
Air Conditioner
Allowance
d. Maintenance
e. Guest House
2. Children Education Allowance 13. Leave Travel Concession/
Home Travel Concession
3. City Compensatory Allowance 14. 14. Medical Allowance
4. Concurrent Charge allowance 15. Newspaper and Magazine
Allowance
5. Conveyance/Transport Allowance 16. Risk Allowance
6. Dearness Allowance 17. Robe Allowance
7. Earned leave encashment 18. Special Pay for
Administrative Work
8. Electricity and water charges 19. Sumptuary Allowance
9. Higher Qualification 20. Telephone Facility
10. Hill area/ Tough Location 21. Transfer Grant
Allowance
11. Home orderly/Domestic Help
Allowance
336 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
7. Among the allowances which have been recommended by the SNJPC,
two new allowances are proposed while two additional components
are introduced to an additional allowance, namely :
(i) Children Education Allowance (Serial No 2 in the tabulation);
(ii) A Furniture and Air conditioner allowance and maintenance
as a part of the House Rent Allowance (Serial Nos 12C and
12D); and
(iii) Risk Allowance (Serial No 16 of the tabulation).
8. The SNJPC has recommended that the City Compensatory Allowance
(Serial No 3 of the above tabulation) should be discontinued. In respect
of the Robe Allowance (Serial No 17), the SNJPC recommended
that such a demand would not be entertained by the next JPC.
Twelve out of the twenty-one allowances form the subject matter of a
recommendation either by the Sixth or, as the case may be, Seventh
Central Pay Commission either on the same or on revised rates.
9. At the outset, it needs to be clarified that since the SNJPC has
proposed a revision of the existing rates as applicable, the States/
Union Territories shall continue to pay the allowances at the rates
which were applicable in respect of each allowance where the SNJPC
has recommended that the revised rates shall come into effect later
than 1 January 2016.
Objections by the Union Government and State Governments:
10. Before we deal with each individual allowance, it would be necessary
to record that, broadly speaking, the objections which have been
raised by the States, Union Territories and the Union Government
can be classified into three categories :
(a) The revision of rates or, as the case may be, the new allowances
will result in an increased financial burden and expenditure;
(b) The rules governing the payment of allowances prescribed by
each State for their own administrative establishment must be
followed; and
(c) the benefits which are provided to judicial officers must be
equivalent to those provided to other Government officers.
11. The submissions urged on behalf of the States have been considered
in several previous judgments of this Court, more specifically in relation
to the recommendations of the SNJPC itself. On the aspect of the
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 337
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
increased financial burden and additional expenditure, this Court, in
its judgment dated 5 April 2023, relied on the earlier decision in the
All India Judges Associationv.Union of India (II)5 andheld that
contentions regarding the financial implications of the directions are
liable to be rejected when the directions stem from the obligation
of the state. In other words, a plea of financial burden cannot be
raised to resist mandatory duties of the state. Providing necessary
service conditions for the effective discharge of judicial functions
is one such duty. The observations in that regard are contained in
paragraph 19 of the judgment dated 05 April 20236.
12. The same objection was dealt with in the subsequent judgment of
this Court dated 19 May 2023 at paragraph 26.7 The Court noted
that the issue of financial burden has been examined in these very
proceedings on at least three occasions and that this Court had
earlier expressed the hope that it will not be re-agitated in view of
All India Judges Association vs Union of India (II)8.
13. Judicial service is an integral and significant component of the
functions of the State and contributes to the constitutional obligation to
sustain the rule of law. Judicial service is distinct in its characteristics
and in terms of the responsibilities which are cast upon the officers
of the District Judiciary to render objective dispensation of justice
5 (1993) 4 SCC 288.
6 19. The directions of this court applying a uniform multiplier and the corresponding financial implications
cannot be considered as excessive in view of the information extracted above. In All India Judges As-
sociationv. Union of India (II), this court has earlier held that additional financial burden cannot be a
ground for review:
“16. The contention with regard to the financial burden likely to be imposed by the di-
rections in question, is equally misconceived. Firstly, the courts do from time to time
hand down decisions which have financial implications and the Government is
obligated to loosen its purse recurrently pursuant to such decisions. Secondly,
when the duties are obligatory, no grievance can be heard that they cast financial
burden. Thirdly, compared to the other plan and non-plan expenditure, we find
that the financial burden caused on account of the said directions is negligible.
We should have thought that such plea was not raised to resist the discharge of the
mandatory duties. The contention that the resources of all the States are not uniform
has also to be rejected for the same reasons. The directions prescribe the minimum
necessary service conditions and facilities for the proper administration of justice. We
believe that the quality of justice administered and the caliber of the persons appointed
to administer it are not of different grades in different States. Such contentions are ill-
suited to the issues involved in the present case.”
(emphasis supplied)
7 26. The submission of the States that there is a paucity of financial resources must be examined from
this aspect of the matter. The States and the Union have repeatedly stated that the burden on the finan-
cial resources of the States/Union due to the Report of the SNJPC is significant and therefore the Report
cannot be implemented. Without the doctrine of inherent powers, any de-funding of the Judiciary cannot
be repelled.
8 (1993) 4 SCC 288.
338 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to citizens. The State is duty bound to ensure that the conditions
of service, both during the tenure of office and after retirement, are
commensurate with the need to maintain dignified working conditions
for serving judicial officers and in the post-retirement emoluments
made available to former members of the judicial service. Members of
the district judiciary are the first point of engagement for citizens who
are confronted with the need for dispute resolution. The conditions
in which judicial officers across the country are required to work
arearduous. The work of a judicial officer is not confined merely to
the working hours rendered in the course of judicial duties in the
court. Every judicial officer is required to work both before and after
the court working hours. The judicial work of each day requires
preparation before cases are called out. A judicial officer continues to
work on cases which may have been dealt with in court, in terms of
preparing the judgment and attending to other administrative aspects
of the judicial record. That apart, members of the district judiciary
have wide ranging administrative functions which take place beyond
working hours, especially on week-ends including the discharge of
numerous duties in relation to prison establishments, juvenile justice
institutions, legal service camps and in general, work associated with
the Legal Services Act 1987.
14. The work of a Judge cannot be assessed solely in terms of their
duties during court working hours. The State is under an affirmative
obligation to ensure dignified conditions of work for its judicial officers
and it cannot raise the defense of an increase in financial burden or
expenditure. Judicial officers spend the largest part of their working
life in service of the institution. The nature of the office often renders
the incumbent incapacitated in availing of opportunities for legal work
which may otherwise be available to a member of the Bar. That
furnishes an additional reason why post-retirement, it is necessary for
the State to ensure that judicial officers are able to live in conditions
of human dignity. It needs to be emphasized that providing for judges,
both during their tenure and upon retirement, is correlated with
the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence, which is
necessary to preserve the faith and confidence of common citizens
in the rule of law, can be ensured and enhanced only so long as
judges are able to lead their life with a sense of financial dignity.
The conditions of service while a judge is in service must ensure a
dignified existence. The post-retirement conditions of service have
a crucial bearing on the dignity and independence of the office of
a judge and how it is perceived by the society. If the service of
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 339
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
the judiciary is to be a viable career option so as to attract talent,
conditions of service, both for working and retired officers, must offer
security and dignity.
15. As we shall indicate in the course of this judgment, the allowances
which have been provided by the SNJPC are basic allowances, most
of which rank on the same scale as what has been made available
to officers discharging executive functions in the AllIndia Services. It
is a matter of grave concern that though officers in the other services
have availed of a revision of their conditions of service as far back as
01 January 2016, similar issues pertaining to judicial officers are still
awaiting a final decision eight years thereafter. Judges have retired
from service. The family pensioners of those who have passed away
are awaiting resolution as well.
16. The second objection which has been raised on behalf of the States
is that the rules of the particular State must be followed in each
instance. This has again been dealt with in the judgment of this
Court dated 19 May 2023. The relevant extract is footnoted below.9
17. This Court has categorically held that there is a need to maintain
uniformity in the service conditions of judicial officers across the
country. Thus, the plea that rules of each State must govern pay
and allowances, lacks substance.
18. The third objection as to the equivalence between judicial officers
and other Government officers has been elaborately analyzed
in paragraph 14 10 of the judgment dated 05 April 2023 and in
9 22. India has a unified judiciary under the scheme of the Constitution. A unified judiciary necessarily
entails that the service conditions of judges of one state are equivalent to similar posts of judges of other
states. The purpose of this constitutional scheme is to ensure that the judicial system is uniform, effective
and efficient in its functioning. Efficient functioning necessarily requires judges of caliber and capacity to
be provided with the right incentives and promotion opportunities to maintain the high level of functioning
of the judiciary.
23 This Court in All India Judges Association (II) has noted the position of law and observed that uniform
designations and hierarchy, with uniform service conditions are unavoidable necessary consequences.
It was held:
“14. … Secondly, the judiciary in this country is a unified institution judicially
though not administratively.Hence uniform designations and hierarchy, with uni-
form service conditions are unavoidable necessary consequences. ….”
10 14. In view of the above discussion, the issue is whether there is any compelling need to reduce the
quantum of increase proposed by applying a lower multiplier so as to marginally reduce the gap between
entry level IAS officers (in Junior and Senior time scales) and Judicial Officers at the first two levels (Civil
Judge, Junior and Senior Divisions). Such an exercise is not warranted for more than one reason. Firstly,
the initial starting pay must be such as to offer an incentive to talented youngsters to join judicial service.
Secondly, the application of a multiplier/ factor less than 2.81 would result in a deviation from the prin-
ciple adopted by SNJPC that the extent of increase of pay of judicial officers must be commensurate with
340 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
paragraphs 24, 2911 of the judgment dated 19 May 2023. Judges are
the increase in the pay of High Court judges. This principle has been accepted by this Court by approving
the recommendations of the SNJPC. Therefore, there is no valid reason to depart from the principle ap-
plied by JPC that the pay of judicial officers should be higher when compared to All India Service Officers
of the corresponding rank. This principle has been approved by this Court in AIJA (2002).….. Thirdly, in
All India Judges Association (II) v. Union of India, this court rejected the comparison of service condi-
tions of the judiciary with that of the administrative executive:
“7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated in the judgment under
review while dealing with the same contentions raised there. We cannot however, help
observing that the failure to realize the distinction between the judicial service and the
other services is at the bottom of the hostility displayed by the review petitioners to
the directions given in the judgment. The judicial service is not service in the sense
of ‘employment’. The Judges are not employees. As members of the judiciary, they
exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They are holders of public offices
in the same way as the members of the council of ministers and the members of
the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such as ours, the executive, the
legislature and the judiciary constitute the three pillars of the State, what is intended to
be conveyed is that the three essential functions of the State are entrusted to the three
organs of the State and each one of them in turn represents the authority of the State.
However, those who exercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators and
the Judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing
their decisions. The council of ministers or the political executive is different from the
secretarial staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of the
political executive. Similarly, the Legislators are different from the legislative staff. So
also the Judges from the judicial staff. The parity is between the political executive, the
Legislators and the Judges and not between the Judges and the administrative execu-
tive. In some democracies like the USA, members of some State judiciaries are elected
as much as the members of the legislature and the heads of the State. The Judges,
at whatever level they may be, represent the State and its authority unlike the
administrative executive or the members of the other services. The members of
the other services, therefore, cannot be placed on a par with the members of the
judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally.”
(emphasis supplied)
Fourthly, the argument that a uniform IoR would equate the district courts with constitutional courts
is erroneous. A uniform multiplier is used for a uniform increment in pay and not for the purpose of
uniform pay in itself. All Judges across the hierarchy of courts discharge the same essential function of
adjudicating disputes impartially and independently. Thus, it would not be appropriate to apply graded
IoR when SNJPC has chosen to uniformly apply the multiplier.
11 24. Separation of powers demands that the officers of the Judiciary be treated separately and distinct
from the staff of the legislative and executive wings. It must be remembered the judges are not em-
ployees of the State but are holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial power. In that
sense, they are only comparable to members of the legislature and ministers in the executive.
Parity, thus, cannot be claimed between staff of the legislative wing and executive wing with of-
ficers of the judicial wing. This Court in All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India, explained the
distinction and held that those who exercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators
and the Judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing their
decisions. Thus, there cannot be any objection that judicial officers receive pay which is not at
par with executive staff. In this context, it may also be remembered that Article 50 of the Constitution
directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the Executive.
29. This Court in its Review Order dated 05.04.2023 has explained this position in the following words:
“7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated in the judgment under re-
view while dealing with the same contentions raised there. We cannot however, help
observing that the failure to realize the distinction between the judicial service
and the other services is at the bottom of the hostility displayed by the review
petitioners to the directions given in the judgment. The judicial service is not ser-
vice in the sense of ‘employment’. The Judges are not employees. As members
of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 341
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
not comparable with the administrative executive. They discharge
sovereign state functions and just like the Council of Ministers or the
political executive and their service is different from the secretarial
staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of
the political executive, judges are distinct from judicial staff, and are
thus comparable with the political executive and legislature. It would
be wholly inappropriate to equate judicial service with the service
of other officers of the State. The functions, duties, restrictions and
restraints operating during and after service are entirely distinct for
members of the judicial service. Consequently, the plea of equivalence
has been consistently rejected in the judgments of this Court. We
affirmatively do so again.
Allowances recommended by the SNJPC
19. We will now deal with each of the allowances as recommended by
the SNJPC.
1. House Building Advance (HBA)
20. At the outset, it needs to be noted that the HBA forms a subject
matter of the recommendations of the Seventh CPC, FNJPC, JPC
and now the SNJPC. The SNJPC has recommended that :
(i) HBA shall be made available to judicial officers in terms of the
House Building Advance Rules, 2017; and
(ii) HBA shall be available to judicial officers also for the purchase
of a ready built house from private individuals subject to such
are holders of public offices in the same way as the members of the council of
ministers and the members of the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy
such as ours, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitute the three pillars
of the State, what is intended to be conveyed is that the three essential functions of
the State are entrusted to the three organs of the State and each one of them in turn
represents the authority of the State. However, those who exercise the State power
are the Ministers, the Legislators and the Judges, and not the members of their staff
who implement or assist in implementing their decisions. The council of ministers or the
political executive is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive
which carries out the decisions of the political executive. Similarly, the Legislators are
different from the legislative staff. So also the Judges from the judicial staff. The parity
is between the political executive, the Legislators and the Judges and not between the
Judges and the administrative executive. In some democracies like the USA, members
of some State judiciaries are elected as much as the members of the legislature and
the heads of the State. The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the
State and its authority unlike the administrative executive or the members of the other
services. The members of the other services, therefore, cannot be placed on a par with
the members of the judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally.”
(emphasis supplied)
342 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
safeguards as may be prescribed by the State Government in
consultation with their respective High Courts.
21. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India has
issued an Office Memorandum12 dated 9 November 2017 providing
for the payment of HBA. The recommendations of the SNJPC are
based on the terms of this OM. However para 2(v) of the OM of the
Union Government contains the following stipulation :
“5. Outright purchase of a new ready-built house flat
from Housing Boards, Development Authorities and other
statutory or semi-Government bodies and from registered
builders i.e., registered private builders, architects house
building societies, etc. but not from private individuals.”
22. The above clause in the OM indicates that the HBA can be availed
of for the outright purchase of a new or ready built house or flat from
public bodies as well as from registered private builders, architects
and societies but not from private individuals. The SNJPC, in the
course of its recommendations has observed as follows :
“6. The Commission having given its consideration to the
same is of the view that the HBA advance to the Judicial
Officers shall be in terms of HBA Rules, 2017. However,
the expression “but not from private individual” in Clause
2(v) needs to be suitably modified. It is quite possible
that an individual may have purchased the house from
the institutions/societies mentioned in the O.M. and if he
subsequently intends to sell it and a Judicial Officer is
inclined to purchase it. In such an event, the HBA may not
be available to the Judicial Officer if Clause 2(v) is strictly
construed. Further, quite often the Government servants/
officials as well as Judicial Officers would prefer to have
ready built house and mere fact that the seller is a private
individual should not be a good reason to deny the HBA
on the terms set out in the Rules. It may be noted from
O.M. that from registered private builders, architects, house
building societies etc. purchase by a private individual is
allowed. There is no good reason for exclusion of purchase
12 “OM”
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 343
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
from private individuals. However, suitable safeguards to
check any overestimation in the case of purchases from
private individual can be evolved by the State Government
in consultation with the High Court. “
23. The SNJPC has basically adopted the same financials as incorporated
in the OM of the Union Government with the modification that the
purchase from a private individual may also be permitted.
24. We are inclined to accept the modification particularly since the State
Governments have been permitted to evolve suitable safeguards,
to check any over estimation in case of a purchase from private
individuals, in consultation with the High Court to ensure that there is
not delay in implementation, we direct that the Committee constituted
in terms of the directions issued in a later part of this judgment
under the authority of every High Court shall sort out any difficulties
which may arise in the implementation of the recommendations of
the SNJPC as accepted by the present order.
25. We accordingly accept the recommendations of the SNJPC on the
adoption of HBA.
2. Children Education Allowance (CEA)
26. The SNJPC has recommended the payment of the allowance with
effect from academic year 2019-2020. The recommendation by
the SNJPC on the payment of the CEA is in accordance with the
recommendations of the Seventh CPC for Central Government
employees which is in the following terms :
(a) Rs 2,250 per month as CEA and Rs 6,750 per month as hostel
subsidy for two children up to Class 12;
(b) For children with special needs, the reimbursement would be
at double the rate stated in (a);
(c) When the DA increases by 50%, the allowances and subsidy
shall increase by 25%; and
(d) The rights of officers who are already receiving this benefit will
not be adversely affected by the recommendation.
27. While arriving at the above rates for the CEA, the SNJPC has
considered the fact that the judicial service has a pan India character.
344 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
In making the recommendation, the SNJPC has based the payment
of the allowance of the CEA in terms of the OM dated 16 August
2017 of the Union Government in the Department of Personnel
and Training. The payment of the allowance as recommended shall
accordingly stand approved.
3. City Compensatory Allowance (CCA)
28. While recommending that the CCA be discontinued prospectively
on the ground that it is not being paid to High Court or Supreme
Court Judges after the Seventh CPC recommendations, the SNJPC
has also directed that no recovery shall be effected on the amount
already paid on account of the allowance.
29. We approve both the recommendation for discontinuation and the
recommendation that no recovery shall be made.
4. Concurrent Charges Allowance
30. The SNJPC has observed that concurrent charge allowance is payable
to officers who are required to hold full charge of the duties of equal
or higher responsibilities in addition to the duties of their own post.
The following recommendations were made by the FNJPC:
“a) The charge allowance be paid to the Judicial Officer when
he is placed in charge of another Court continuously
beyond the period of 10 working days and if he performs
appreciable judicial work of that Court;
AND
b) The charge allowance be paid to such Judicial Officer at
10% of the minimum of the time scale of the additional
post held.”
31. The SNJPC has made a similar recommendation for the payment
of a like allowance where a judicial officer was placed in charge of
another court continuously beyond a period of ten working days. The
SNJPC was of the view that the Concurrent Charge Allowance with
a ceiling @ 10% of the minimum of the scale of the additional post
held beyond a period of ten working days is reasonable and does
not require any upward revision. Moreover, it opined that with the
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 345
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
revision of pay, the quantum of allowance at the rate of 10% is an
adequate sum. The SNJPC observed that the actual amount payable
within the ceiling of 10% depends upon the number of days worked,
the quantum of judicial work turned out and the administrative work
handled. Moreover, as was being done earlier, the High Courts would
decide the amount payable having regard to the relevant factors. The
SNJPC, however, recommended that the parameter of “appreciable
judicial work” of the FNJPCis vague and involves a cumbersome
process. That criterion has accordingly been dispensed with. The
summary of the recommendations of SNJPC in that regard is set
out below:
“1. The concurrent charge allowance to be available maximum
at the rate of 10% of the minimum of the scale of the
additional post held beyond a period of ten working days.
2. No upward revision in the percentage of the Concurrent
Charge allowance.
3. High Court to decide the Concurrent Charge allowance to
be available to the Officer within the ceiling of 10% on the
basis of the number of days worked, the quantum of judicial
work turned out and the administrative work handled.
4. The criterion laid down by FNJPC be dispensed with and
there shall not be any insistence on the performance of
‘appreciable judicial work’ of the Court concerned. “
32. The recommendations made by the SNJPC is accordingly accepted.
5. Conveyance/Transport Allowance (TP)
33. As regards Conveyance/Transport Allowance, the SNJPC made the
following recommendations:
(a) The pool car service for various judicial officers, as recommended
by FNJPC, must be dispensed with. However, if the officers wish,
they can forgo the transport allowance and continue with the
pool car service for a period of one year or so;
(b) The transport allowance at the rate of Rs 10,000 per month
be given to those judicial officers who own the car so as to
346 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
cover the cost of maintenance and driver’s salary and this will
be increased to Rs 13,500 from 01.01.2021. The transport
allowance would be payable at a reduced rate of Rs 4,000 per
month in those States where there is an existing practice of
allocating a driving-knowing office attendant/peon to the officer;
(c) In addition to the transport allowance, there should be a
reimbursement of the cost of 100 litres of petrol/diesel in cities
and 75 litres of petrol/diesel in other areas;
(d) After the recommendations of FNJPC, the following judicial
functionaries were eligible for official vehicles, namely, Principal
District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Principal Judge of City Civil Court and Principal
Judge of Small Causes Court. In addition to these functionaries,
three more judicial functionaries would be eligible for official
vehicles, namely, Director of the Judicial Academy/Judicial
Training Institute, Principal Judge of the Family Courts and
Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority. The High
Courts were permitted to prune down the list depending upon
the financial capacity of the State;
(e) The quantum of petrol/diesel for official cars would be raised to
the actual consumption for official purposes as certified by the
concerned official and supported by a log book, which would
be maintained. The judicial officers using official cars may be
permitted to use them for private purposes to the extent of 300
kms per month;
(f) The judicial officers shall be permitted to exhibit a sticker at their
option on the lower left side of the windscreen with inscription
‘Judge’ printed in moderately sized letters; and
(g) Soft loan facilities to the extent of Rs ten lakhs at nominal interest
for the purchase of car shall be extended to the judicial officers.
34. The report of the SNJPC in regard to the payment of conveyance/
transport allowance is accepted. All concerned authorities shall take
steps for the purpose of implementing the recommendations.
6. Dearness Allowance
35. By its order dated 19 May 2023, this Court has accepted the
recommendation of the SNJPC on dearness allowance.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 347
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
7. Earned Leave Encashment
36. The SNJPC has recommended that the judicial officers be entitled
to earned leave encashment in the following manner:
“9. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. No enhancement in the maximum limit of 300 days
leave encashment at the time of retirement.
2. A judicial officer shall be entitled to encash :
(a) 10 days earned leave while availing LTC subject
to maximum 60 days – 10 at a time upto six
occasions during the entire service.
(b) 30 days in a block of two years.
(c) S.No.(a) and (b) shall be in addition to the right
of the Judicial Officers to encashupto 300 days
EL at the time of retirement.
3. In case of officers who have retired and while granting
leave encashment at the time of retirement, the leave
encashment availed during service stand adjusted
shall be paid the amount of the so adjusted earned
leave, at the time of retirement as explained in the
example above, within a period of three months from
the date of acceptance of the report.”
37. The report submitted by the SNJPC in regard to the earned leave
encashment is accepted.
8. Electricity and Water Charges
38. The SNJPC has made the following recommendations:
“1. No change in the percentage of reimbursement. The 50%
of reimbursement formula recommended by FNJPC and
reiterated by the JPC shall continue.
2. The ceiling in terms of units of electricity and the quantity
of water consumed shall be as follows:
Designation Electricity Units Water Quantity
District Judges 8000 units per annum 420 Kls per annum
Civil Judges 6000 units per annum 336 Kls per annum
348 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
3. Reimbursement of electricity and water charges shall be on
the quarterly basis on production of proof of payment of the
billed amount.
4. This allowance shall be available at the enhanced rates w.e.f.
01.01.2020.”
39. The SNJPC duly considered the objections. While some High
Courts suggested the continuance of the existing system of 50%
reimbursement, others suggested reimbursement at 75%, while still
others at 100%. The High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand
suggested the fixation of a ceiling on the number of units. The Union
of India and almost all States except Jharkhand and Kerala have
accepted the recommendation of SNJPC. The State of Jharkhand
recommended a ceiling of Rs 1,250 per month for electricity and
water charges.
40. Having considered the recommendation, we are of the view that it
should be accepted and it is ordered accordingly.
9. Higher Qualification Allowance
41. The SNJPC noted that for acquiring higher qualifications in law,
specialized study of the subjects concerned is involved and the
acquisition of such qualifications in the nature of a post graduate or
doctoral degree will improve the quality of work of a judicial officer.
The recommendations of the SNJPC are summarized below:
“1. The Judicial Officers shall be granted three advance
increments for acquiring higher qualification i.e. post-
graduation in law and one more advance increment if he
acquires Doctorate in Law.
2. The advance increments once granted for post-graduation
degree or Doctorate in law shall not be again granted if,
in future, the officer acquires post graduate or Doctorate
degree in any other subject.
3. The advance increments shall be available to the officer
who had acquired the post-graduation degree or Doctorate
either before recruitment or at any time subsequent thereto
while in service.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 349
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
4. The advance increments shall be granted from the date
of initial recruitment, if the officer has already acquired the
post-graduation degree or Doctorate and from the date
of acquiring the post-graduation or Doctorate degree, if
acquired after joining the service.
5. The advance increments shall be made available to the
officers only and only if the higher qualification has been
acquired through regular studies (full time or part time)
and not through distant learning programmes.
6. The benefit of advance increments shall not be extended
at the ACP stage (ACP I or II). However, the advance
increment shall be available when the Officer is promoted
from Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) to Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and from
Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) to District Judge cadre.
7. The advance increments shall be available in the District
Judge Cadre from District Judge (Entry Level) to District
Judge (Selection Grade) and from District Judge (Selection
Grade) to District Judge (Super Time Scale).
8. The advance increments for all practical purposes shall be
part of salary and Dearness Allowance shall be available
on the same.”
42. The recommendation made by the SNJPC that the benefit of advance
increment shall not be extended at the ACP stage appears to be
covered by the order of this Court dated 30 September 2022 in State
of Maharashtra v Tejwant Singh Sandhu13 where this Court held:
“The short question which is posed for consideration of this
Court is whether the judicial officers who have acquired
the the degree of LL.M. are entitled to the benefit of an
additional increment? It is the case on behalf of the State
that once the concerned Judicial Officer is getting the
benefit of ACP, is not entitled to the additional increment on
acquiring the additional qualification of LL.M. The aforesaid
cannot be accepted. The grant of ACP has nothing to
do with the benefit of additional increment on acquiring
13 SLP(C) 1041 of 2020
350 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
theadditional qualification like LL.M. Even otherwise, the
issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in
Bharat Kumar Shantilal Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat &
Anr. (2014)15 SCC 305.
In view of the above, there is no substance in the present
Special Leave Petition and the same deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.”
43. There is no justification for denying the benefit of advance increments
at the ACP stage. The object and purpose of ACP is to prevent
stagnation. On the other hand, the object and purpose of advance
increments for acquiring higher qualifications is to improve judicial
performance. Hence, the restrictive condition imposed by the
SNJPC in regard to non-extension of advance increments at the
ACP stage is not accepted. The advance increments for acquiring
higher qualifications shall also be made available to officers who
have acquired their degrees through distance learning programmes.
44. Subject to the above clarifications, the recommendation of the
SNJPC is accepted.
10. Hill Area/Tough Location Allowance
45. The SNJPC has made the following recommendations:
“1. Hill Area/Tough Location Allowance @Rs.5000/- per month
shall be paid to the Judicial Officers posted in hill areas/
tough locations.
2. More beneficial provision, if any, already applicable to the
officials of the State/UT shall be extended to the Judicial
officers.
3. In case of doubt, whether a particular area can be
considered to be hilly or tough location area, decision of
the High Court shall be followed in relation to the Judicial
officers.
4. This allowance shall be available w.e.f. 01.01.2016.”
46. The recommendation is accepted. All High Courts are directed to
specify the areas classifiable as hill areas/tough locations within a
period of two months from the date of this order.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 351
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
11. Home Orderly/Domestic Help Allowance
47. The SNJPC has made the following recommendations:
“1. The Home-cum-office orderly allowance shall be available
to the serving Judicial officers at the following rates :
District Judges : minimum wages for one unskilled
worker in the concerned State/UT subject to minimum of
Rs.10,000/- per month
Civil Judges : 60% of the minimum wages for one unskilled
worker in the concerned State/UT subject to minimum of
Rs.7,500/- per month.
2. Judicial officers getting higher allowance on this account
by virtue of the orders issued by some States, they may
continue to draw the same.
3. The allowance at the aforesaid rates shall be available
to the Judicial Officers w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in States where
they are getting the same prior to 01.01.2016 and in other
cases, w.e.f. 01.01.2020.
4. The Judicial officers provided with Group D employee as
an Attender/Peon/office subordinate for residential duties
may exercise their option either to continue with the
present system and forego the allowance that has been
recommended or to claim the allowance instead of availing
the services of the official Attender/Peon.
5(a). The payment of home orderly allowance should not result
in discontinuance of practice, if any, of deputing the Office
Peons/Attenders or other Group D employee during nights
at the residences of (i) Magistrates who are called upon
to attend the Judicial work at times during night times. (ii)
the Office Peon/Attender or such other Group D employee
deputed for night duty at the residence of Judicial officer
living in the areas generally considered to be disturbed
or security risk areas or outsourced security guards to
be deployed in such areas and (iii) such personnel can
also be deputed to the residence of Principal District
Judge or equivalent rank officer having administrative
responsibilities.
352 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(b) The deployment of Peons/Attenders for such residential
duties shall be subject to the availability of Group D/Class
IV personnel and without detriment to Court related duties.
6. Drawing up a panel of Home Orderlies/residential
attendants/sevaks appointed on consolidated salary
equivalent to minimum wages and allotting them to the
Judicial officers (as suggested by the Madras High Court)
can be thought of as an alternative subject to the decision
taken in this regard by the concerned High Court. However,
in such a case, Home Orderly allowance cannot be claimed.
7a. Domestic Help Allowance to the pensioners and family
pensioners shall be available at the following rates from
01.01.2016 :
Pensioner : Rs.9,000/- per month
Family pensioners : Rs.7,500/- per month
7b. This allowance shall stand increased by 30% on completion
of five years from 01.01.2016 that is, w.e.f. 01.01.2021.
8. The allowance shall be drawn on the self certification of
the Judicial Officer/Pensioner/Family Pensioner.”
48. We accept the recommendations of the SNJPC.
12. House Rent Allowance and Residential Quarters
49. The allowance under the above head has the following components:
(a) Residential Quarters:
The SNJPC took note of the fact that there is a dearth of residential
government quarters and that securing suitable accommodation has
become an acute problem for judicial officers. The SNJPC made the
following recommendations:
1. The State Governments should urgently take up construction
of the residential quarters for the Judicial Officers and the
progress of construction be monitored by this Court.
2. The Judicial Officer is to be provided accommodation or
requisitioned private accommodation within one month of
taking charge of the post.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 353
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
3. If the Judicial Officer is not provided with the government
accommodation or requisitioned private accommodation
within one month, then the Judicial Officer may secure
private accommodation and should be paid rent in the
following terms:
a. If the rent of the private accommodation is within the
admissible house rent allowance mentioned below, no
fixation of rent is required. But the concerned Judicial
Officer has to certify the actual rent being paid.
b. If the rent of the private accommodation is more
than permissible house rent allowance, the rent
shall be assessed by Principal District Judge with
the assistance of PWD/R&B officials.
c. If the difference between the permissible house rent
allowance and the rent assessed is more than 15%
and Principal District Judge may seek approval of
High Court for payment of the said amount unless
the officer is ready to pay the differential cost.
4. The minimum plinth area for the residential accommodation
shall be 2500 sq. ft. for District Judge and 2000 sq. ft. for
Civil Judge. However, The High Court administration have
the discretion to sanction the design with higher plinth area.
(b) House Rent Allowance
The SNJPC noticed that different rates of HRA are prevalent in
different cities. Taking all aspects into account, the SNJPC was of
the view that the Central Government notified rates may be adopted
by the States and made the following recommendations:
(i) Judicial officers who are allotted official quarters for residence
shall not be entitled to HRA;
(ii) Judicial officers residing in their own houses, including the house
of a parent or spouse, shall also be entitled for the recommended
HRA with effect from 01.01.2016 after obtaining permission from
the High Court to reside in their own house and judicial officers
already residing in hired accommodation will be entitled to the
recommended HRA with effect from 01.01.2020, subject to the
actual rent paid within the said ceiling;
354 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(iii) The Office of the Principal District Judge or equivalent shall
pay rent directly to the landlord, in which case, the officer is
not eligible to draw HRA; and
(iv) The SNJPC rates of HRA should be applicable to all Judicial
Officers as per the notification dated 07.07.2017 which was
issued after the VIIth Central Pay Commission (CPC) by the
Central Government:
“ Rates of HRA/pm as % of basic pay
X 24%
Y 16%
Z 8%
However, the minimum rates prescribed are 5400/-, 3600/- and
1800/- respectively. And the rate will be changed in accordance with
the change in Dearness Allowance in the following terms:
Classification of Rates of HRA/pm as % of When DA
Cities basic pay crosses
X 27% 25%
30% 50%
Y 18% 25%
20% 50%
Z 9% 25%
10% 50%
‘Z’ Category is unclassified at present and the High Court is at liberty
to upgrade and add the cities in different classes.”
(c) Furniture and Air Conditioner Allowance
The SNJPC was apprised of the fact that some furniture is provided to
the judicial officers in certain places, but there is a lack of uniformity.
The SNJPC made the following recommendations:
“4. Furniture grant of Rs.1.25 lakhs every five years shall
be provided to the Judicial Officer subject to production
of proof of purchase by the Judicial Officer. Household
electrical appliances can also be purchased by availing
of the said grant. The Officers having not less than two
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 355
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
years of service will also be eligible for this allowance. The
option to purchase the furniture being used by the officer
at the depreciated rate shall be available at the time of
fresh grant or retirement.
4.1 Apart from the furniture grant, one air-conditioner shall be
provided at the residence of every Judicial Officer once
in every five years.”
(d) Residential quarters - maintenance
In order to obviate the problems faced by judicial officers in securing
services of electricians, plumber, carpenters, sanitary workers and
masons and bearing in mind that the Public Works Department,
which is in-charge of maintenance, does not have sufficient funds
to carry out the work, the SNJPC recommended that an amount of
Rs Ten lakhs be made available to each Principal District Judge
on the basis of a proposal sent by the Registry of the High Court
for the proper maintenance of the residential quarters and that the
Government must sanction the amount proposed within two months
from the date of the receipt of their proposal.
(e) Guest House/Transit Accommodation
The SNJPC has been in agreement with the suggestions made
by the Associations that guest house facility should be provided
exclusively for judicial officers bearing in mind the problem faced in
securing accommodation in State guest houses. While the SNJPC
was aware that it is not possible to construct guest houses in all
districts, it emphasized the need to have a guest house-cum-transit
accommodation at least in cities and major towns. In that regard,
the following recommendations were made:
“17.2 The Commission does not expect that the Guest
houses for the Judiciary should be constructed in
all Dist. Headquarters irrespective of the size of the
District. The travails of the Judicial Officers in securing
suitable accommodation for stay is undeniable at
least in the cities and major important towns. There
is every need to construct Guest houses-cum-transit
homes. One wing can be earmarked as a transit home
where the transferred Officer can stay initially for a
356 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
few weeks till s(he) finds residential accommodation –
Official or private. The Guest house-cum-transit home
facility is a long felt need of the Judicial Officers. The
Commission recommends that the Guest houses/transit
homes shall be constructed in a phased manner by
the Governments concerned. The officials concerned
shall act in coordination with the Registry of the High
Court to identify the places. The details such as number
and size of rooms and the amenities shall be finalized
after mutual discussion. As regards the first phase of
such construction, the State Governments/UTs may
be directed to initiate action within a time frame of six
months and necessary financial allocation has to be
made for this purpose during the financial year 2020-21.
Needless to say that after construction, the High Courts
will issue necessary instructions regarding maintenance,
minimal catering arrangement, rent to be charged etc.”
Of the above five components of house rent related allowances, those
at (c) (Furniture and Air Conditioner Allowance) and (d) (Maintenance)
have been introduced for the first time. The other components form
part of the service conditions of judicial officers.
50. We find reason and justification for the addition of the two components.
All the components which have been suggested by the SNJPC are
integral to the proper performance of the duties by judicial officers
and are accordingly accepted.
13. Leave Travel Concession(LTC)/Home Travel Concession(HTC)
51. The FNJPC recommended that LTC should be provided once in a
block of four years to any place in India. However, it laid down a
threshold of a completion of five years of service before availing of
LTC. The FNJPC also recommended that HTC be extended once in
two years and the entitlement for the journey would be according to
the rules of the respective States. The recommendation was accepted
in 2002 by the decision in the All India Judges Association case
by this Court.
52. The JPC, while reiterating these recommendations, proposed two
modifications:
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 357
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
(i) A judicial officer may be permitted to avail of LTC on completion
of two years of service and on completion of probation (thereby
relaxing the requirement of five years of minimum service); and
(ii) The restriction on the availing of LTC in the last year of service
was dispensed with.
53. While reiterating the recommendation for HTC, the JPC suggested
an additional HTC if a judicial officer was subjected to two or more
transfers in the same cadre from one end of the State to another
for administrative reasons.
54. The SNJPC considered the views of the High Courts and of the
Associations. On considering all aspects of the matter, the SNJPC
made the following recommendations:
“i. Payment of one month’s salary for not availing the LTC
is unwarranted and it would defeat the objective of LTC.
ii. Encashment of 10 days earned leave while availing LTC
(not HTC) (subject to the maximum of 60 days) can
continue. The same will be in addition to encashment
of 300 days at the time of retirement and 30 days in a
block of two years.
iii(a). As regards frequency of LTC, the Judicial Officers may
be permitted to avail one LTC and one HTC in a block
of 3 years.
(b) As far as fresh recruits are concerned, the HTC shall be
allowed 2 times in the first block of 3 years. However,
the block of 3 years will commence on completion of the
period prescribed for probation (not necessarily declared).
iv(a). The Judicial officers irrespective of their rank shall be
allowed to travel by air and the reimbursement shall be
made subject to the condition that the tickets have been
purchased either directly from the Airlines or from the
agents authorized, namely, Ashoka Travels, Balmer and
Lawrie and IRCTC by the Central/State Government
subject to further addition or deletion of the authorized
agent by the Central/State Government.
358 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(b) The other details such as class of travel, advance etc. shall
be governed by the respective Rules/Orders of States/UTs.
v. The Judicial officers may be allowed to carry forward LTC
anywhere in India beyond retirement for a period of one year.
vi. There is no justification for extending the LTC/HTC facility
to the retired Judicial officers.
vii. As regards the foreign travel to SAARC countries, the
District Judges and Senior Civil Judges may be allowed
the said facility on two occasions in their service career
and only economy class travel shall be allowed.
viii. The Judicial officers shall not be required to avail of
earned leave only, for LTC/HTC purpose and they may
be permitted to avail of casual leave as a prefix and suffix
to the extent of two days.”
55. LTC/HTC were components already provided for by the FNJPC and
JPC. The recommendations of the SNJPC are on a continuum. We
accept the recommendations, save and except for foreign travel to
SAARC countries which shall be deleted.
14. Medical Allowance/Medical Facilities
56. The subject matter of the above allowance/facility has been duly
considered in the earlier reports of the FNJPC and JPC.Before
proceeding further, it would be appropriate to extract from the
recommendations of the SNJPC in regard to medical allowances
and medical facilities. The recommendations read as follows:
“1. Fixed medical allowance shall be payable @Rs.3,000/- p.m.
to the serving Judicial Officers with effect from 01.01.2016.
2. Fixed medical allowance shall be payable @Rs.4,000/-
to the pensioners and family pensioners with effect from
01.01.2016.
3. The spouse or other dependents of Judicial Officers
drawing family pension shall also be eligible for medical
facilities/reimbursement at par with the pensioners of
the judiciary.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 359
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
4(a) The necessity of reference from the Medical Officer
of a Government hospital shall be dispensed with.
Straightaway, the Judicial Officers including pensioners/
family pensioners shall be entitled to have consultations/
treatment in the Government notified/empanelled private
hospitals/Pathological Labs and seek reimbursement by
submitting the bills as per the usual procedure (which is
now being followed).
4(b) In regard to Judicial Officers governed by DGEHS or
CGHS, the existing procedure which is quite simple and
systematic, can be followed.
4(c) The Principal District Judges or Registry of High Court [in
respect of Principal District Judge] shall be empowered
to address credit letters to the concerned hospitals where
the Judicial Officer or Judicial Pensioner/Family Pensioner
has been or to be admitted as inpatient.
4(d) For the Pensioners and Family Pensioners, a Medical Card
on the lines of what is being issued in Delhi as shown in
Appendix III shall be issued by the Principal District Judge.
4(e) The expenditure incurred towards inpatient treatment or
for serious ailments requiring more or less continuous
treatment shall be processed and sanctioned by the
Principal District Judges or other authorized Officer of
that rank or as the case may be by the Registry of the
High Courts.
4(f) In the case of emergency, the Judicial Officer, serving &
retired as well as the family pensioner can take treatment in
any nearest private hospital – not necessarily, Government
notified hospitals and seek reimbursement as per the usual
procedure. If necessary, Credit letter shall be issued for
this purpose.
5. On submission of the estimate given by the recognized/
empanelled hospital, 80% shall be sanctioned as advance,
subject to preliminary scrutiny by the Principal District
Judge or a District Judge of equivalent rank authorized
by the Registry of the High Court. The balance shall be
360 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
reimbursed on certification by the designated Civil Surgeon
or Official of the Directorate of Medical & Health Services
as the case may be. If the Government approved rates are
not available for any particular item, the certifying officer
shall have due regard to the rates generally charged in the
hospitals concerned. Though there needs to be scrutiny
before sanctioning the payment in view of the tendency
to exaggerate the estimates, the extent of disallowance
shall be minimal and the reasons for disallowance shall be
disclosed by the certifying authority. The bills sent by the
District Judge for scrutiny of the designated Civil Surgeon/
Officer of Directorate shall be cleared within a maximum
period of one month from the date of receipt.
6(a) The retired Judicial Officers and the family pensioners
who have settled down in another State shall have the
facility to claim medical reimbursement/advance from the
State from which s(he) is drawing pension/family pension.
6(b) The cost of treatment including room charges/tests
undergone in any Government/Government notified/
recognized hospitals/pathological labs in an emergency
or otherwise shall be reimbursed to the serving officers
on tour (official or private purpose) to another State or
settled in another State after retirement even though it is
not recognized hospital/lab in the State in which the officer
is serving or had served.
7. The Registry of the High Court shall examine whether
the notified/empanelled hospitals sufficiently cater to the
needs of the Judicial Officers including the pensioners/
family pensioners and send proposals to the Government
for notifying additional hospitals/pathological Labs to the
extent it is considered necessary.
8. To avoid delays in processing and sanctioning the bills
for want of funds, the Registry of High court shall take
prompt action in addressing the Government for releasing
additional funds and the Finance Department of the State
shall take immediate action by way of making available
the additional funds to the High Court on this account.”
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 361
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
We analyze the recommendations of the SNJPC below.
Fixed Allowance
57. The SNJPC has justifiably increased the fixed medical allowance
to Rs 3,000 per month for serving judicial officers and to Rs 4,000
per month to pensioners and family pensioners with effect from
01.01.2016. This recommendation was made in view of the fact
that the FNJPC had recommended a fixed medical allowance of Rs
300 per month, which was increased by the JPC to Rs 1,000 per
month for serving judicial officers. The JPC enhanced the medical
allowance to Rs 1,500 per month for retired judicial officers and Rs
750 per month for family pensioners. The recommendation made
by the SNJPC for uniformity in the medial allowance payable to
pensioners and family pensioners is wholesome and is consistent with
Article 14. Of the Constitution. There is no valid basis to distinguish
between pensioners and family pensioners for the payment of a fixed
medical allowance. Moreover, an increase of Rs 1,000 per month for
pensioners as compared to serving judicial officers is also justified
considering the fact that the pensioners as a class would need more
medical attention with advancing years.
Medical Facilities and Reimbursement
58. The medical facilities to be provided to serving judicial officers,
retired judicial officers and family pensioners differ from State to
State. There are three broad models which are followed in the case
of government servants:
(a) Access to a health scheme like CGHS under which there are
empaneled hospitals;
(b) Access to government hospitals and thereafter upon following
a procedure of reference; and
(c) Cashless facilities pursuant to group insurance policies.
59. The FNJPC recommended that the judicial officers should also be
given similar medical facilities as are being given to the members
of the State legislature. It recommended that the State Government
should notify the list of hospitals for medical treatment of judicial
362 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
officers and their families. A similar benefit was extended to retired
judges. The FNJPC’s recommendations were accepted by this Court
in All India Judges Association v Union of India14.
60. The JPC reiterated the recommendations of the FNJPC. Its
recommendations were accepted in All India Judges Association
v Union of India15.
61. While noting the varying practices which are followed across the
country, the SNJPC observed that while the CGHS and DGEHS are
working well, difficulties are faced by judicial officers in several States
where there is neither a proper empanelment of doctors, hospitals
and labs nor is there an effective procedure for reimbursement of
medical bills. It specifically noted the case of the State of Maharashtra
where the earlier orders of this Court were not observed. The SNJPC
further noted that in the absence of proper empanelment, referral by
a Medical Officer of a government hospital is needed for treatment
in private hospitals. The SNJPC has taken note of the grievance
of the judicial officers while formulating its recommendations. The
grievances which were projected by the judicial officers included
the following:
“1) Lack of adequate number of notified hospitals/pathological
labs.
2) Non-availability of cashless treatment for in-hospital
treatment even in case of serious ailments and emergency.
3) The Civil Surgeon or Directorate of Medical/Health
services to whom the claims are referred to are enforcing
unjustifiable cuts.
4) Delay in processing/passing the bills in case of high claims.
5) Insistence of Essentiality Certificate even for medicines
purchased on the basis of the prescription issued by
Registered Medical Practitioner or even the Consultant
of the notified hospital.
14 (2002) 4 SCC 247
15 (2010) 14 SCC 720
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 363
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
6) Procedural problems being faced by the Judicial Officers
who have settled down in other States after retirement.
7) Non-specification of premier hospitals of repute in other
States for the purpose of availing reimbursable medical
treatment in cases of serious ailments.
8) Non-extension of medical facilities to the family pensioners.”
62. During the course of the hearing, the attention of this Court has been
drawn to the situation in the State of Uttar Pradesh by members of
the Association representing former judges. It has been submitted that
the hospitals which have been empaneled by the State Government
for the purpose of cashless facilities are providing sub-standard
treatment. As a result, the cashless facilities cannot be availed of
by the officers. It has been submitted that since a sufficiently large
number of hospitals is empaneled under CGHS (nearly 300 hospitals
in the State of Uttar Pradesh alone), the State Government may be
directed to follow the hospitals which are empaneled for the purpose
of CGHS so as to ensure that the quality of treatment which is
extended to the judicial officers and retired judicial officers as well
as family pensioners is of a requisite standard.
63. The primary concern which has been expressed by serving judicial
officers and by retired officers is that the recommendations made by
the SNJPC appear to lower the bench-mark or standard set by the
FNJPC of entitling the judicial officers to the same medical facilities
as those provided to members of the legislative assembly.
64. Mr K Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae, has submitted that this may
not be an appropriate manner of reading the recommendations
made by the SNJPC. According to him, the recommendations of
the SNJPC should be read holistically and harmoniously with those
of the FNJPC. Hence, the recommendations which were made by
the FNJPC to have empaneled doctors, hospitals or labs and the
recommendations to do away with the referral system must be
viewed in addition to the standards which were set by SNJPC. We
find force on the submission.
65. The substantive recommendations which are made by the SNJPC
are accepted. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution, we institutionalize the process issuing the following
directions in the segment of this judgment which follows.
364 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
15. Newspaper and Magazine Allowances
66. The following recommendations have been made by the SNJPC:
“1. Reimbursement for newspaper and magazines shall be
Rs.1000/- for District Judges (two newspapers and two
magazines) and Rs.700/- for Civil Judges (two newspapers
and one magazine).
2. The reimbursement shall be on half yearly basis from
January to June and July to December, on the basis of
self certification.
3. The allowance at the above mentioned rates shall be
available from 01.01.2020.
4. More beneficial provision already in operation in any State
shall continue.”
67. The recommendations are accepted.
16. Risk Allowance
68. The SNJPC has considered it reasonable to grant risk allowance.
The SNJPC has issued the following recommendations:
“1. Risk allowance shall be made available to the Judicial
Officers working in the States of Jammu & Kashmir and
insurgency affected North East States at the same rate
as is available to the Civilian Government officials working
in those areas.
2. The allowance will be available w.e.f. 01.01.2020.”
69. The recommendation is accepted.
17. Robe Allowance
70. The SNJPC has noted that the pay and facilities of judicial officers
have considerably improved in view of the recommendations made
by the Judicial Commissions. Hence, the situation which existed
at the time when the FNJPC had examined the matter “no longer
exists now”. Hence, it was of the view that it would be appropriate
if judicial officers do not raise such a demand. The Seventh CPC
recommended a uniform allowance only to those employees who are
required to wear a prescribed dress in the course of the discharge
of their duties. However, having regard to the practice which was in
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 365
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
force for a considerable time and the essential nature of the robe as
apparel for Judges, the SNJPC recommended a “modest increase of
the allowance, with the hope that such demand for robe allowance
will not be raised before the next Commission”. Consequently, the
SNJPC recommended that:
(i) An allowance of Rs 12,000 will be payable once in three years
with effect from 01.01.2016; and
(ii) The demand for the robe allowance may not be raised before
the next Commission.
71. We are inclined to accept and accordingly accept the above
recommendations.
18. Special Pay for Administrative Work
72. The SNJPC noted that judicial officers in-charge of certain courts/
tribunals have administrative responsibilities for which extra time
outside the court working hours has to be spent. This is especially
so in the case of Principal District and Sessions Judges or other
District Judges having similar responsibilities. The SNJPC noted that
Principal District Judges in the districts and officers of equivalent
ranks in the cities are required to inspect courts, monitor the progress
of cases, assess the performance of officers, conduct discreet
inquiries in vigilance cases, and send reports to the High Courts.
The administrative work, as the SNJPC noted, is considerable and
extra time has to be devoted both at the residence and office for
carrying out such duties.
73. Bearing in mind the additional administrative duties which have to
be discharged by judicial officers, the SNJPC made the following
recommendations:
“1. Special Pay for Judicial officers doing administrative work
shall be payable to :
a) Principal District and Sessions Judges : Rs.7000/- per
month
b) Other District Judges including I Additional District Judges
entrusted with administrative work who have to generally
spend time beyond Court working hours : Rs. 3500/- per
month.
366 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
c) District Judges presiding over Special Courts and Tribunals
having independent administrative responsibilities :
Rs.3500/- per month.
d) CJMs and Principal Senior, Junior Civil Judges and other
Judicial Officers having administrative responsibilities
being in charge of independent Courts with filing powers
: Rs.2000/- per month.
2. The Special Pay shall be available w.e.f. 01.01.2019.”
74. The SNJPC has adduced a sound rationale for the above
recommendation. The recommendation is accordingly accepted.
19. Sumptuary Allowance
75. The SNJPC has made the following recommendations:
1. The sumptuary allowance shall be available to the Judicial
Officers at the following rates :
District Judges Rs. 7,800/- per month
Civil Judges (Sr. Div.) Rs. 5,800/- per month
Civil Judges (Jr. Div.) Rs. 3,800/- per month
2. The allowance shall be available w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
3. The following categories of Judicial Officers shall get Rs.1,000/-
(One thousand) more by virtue of their status or the additional
responsibilities they shoulder.
● Principal District Judge in-charge of administration in the
Districts/Cities.
● District Judges in selection grade and super time-scale.
● Director of Judicial Academy/Judicial Training Institute/
Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority.
● Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
4. No sumptuary allowance shall be payable to retired Judicial
Officers.
76. The report of the SNJPC notes that the Seventh CPC recommended
the abolition of sumptuary allowance while observing that expenditure
on hospitality should be treated as office expenditure and that the
Ministry of Finance shall lay down the ceilings for various levels. In
that context, the SNJPC observed:
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 367
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
“5. The VII CPC recommended abolition of sumptuary
allowance and observed that the expenditure on hospitality
should be treated as office expenditure and the Ministry
of Finance shall lay down the ceilings for various levels.
Accepting the recommendation of CPC, the sumptuary/
entertainment allowance was abolished w.e.f. 30.06.2017.
At the same time, by the Office Memorandum dated
22.09.2017, the Government of India (Department of
Expenditure, Ministry of Finance) having observed that
“the hospitality related expenditure is now to be incurred
as office expenditure”, conveyed the President’s decision
prescribing the ceiling of office expenditure on hospitality
only for a few dignitaries and officials. The Table appended
to the O.M. is as follows:
Sl.No. Designation Existing Rates Prescribed ceiling
of sumptuary/ in respect of
Entertainment hospitality related
Allowance office expenditure
(Rs. per month)
(Rs. per month)
1. Chief Justice of India 20000/- 45000/-
2. Judges of the 15000/- 34000/-
Supreme
Court and Chief
Justice of
High Courts
3. Judges of the High 12000/- 27000/-
Court
4. Cabinet Secretary 10000/- 23000/-
5. Training
Establishments
Director or Head 3500/- 8000/-
Course Directors 2500/- 5700/-
Counsellors 2000/- 4500/-
6 Judicial Officers At the same rate Existing rates may
in Supreme Court as they were be multiplied by a
Registry getting in the factor of 2.25”
parent office
368 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
77. The SNJPC rejected the demand of the Association in regard to the
quantum of increase in sumptuary allowance and decided to adopt
an increase of 2.25 times, broadly speaking, as the guiding principle
to arrive at this conclusion, based on the yardstick of annual inflation
and increase of points in the consumer price index.
The increase which has been granted by the SNJPC is reasonable
and commends itself for acceptance. We accordingly accept the
recommendation.
20. Telephone Facility
78. The following recommendations have been made by the SNJPC:
“1. The Judicial Officers shall be provided with the following
telephone facilities:
i. Residential Telephone (Landline) :
(a) The landline telephone and broadband facility (by the
same or different service providers) shall be provided at
the residence of the Judicial Officers with the permitted
user as follows :
District Judges : Rs.1500/- per month
Civil Judges : Rs.1000/- per month
inclusive of rent, calls (local and STD both) and internet use.
(b) At places where broadband facility is not available, the
permissible user shall be :
District Judges : Rs.1000/- per month
Civil Judges : Rs.750/- per month
inclusive of rent and calls (local and STD both).
ii. Mobile Phone :
(a) The provision of mobile phone (handset) with internet
shall be as follows:
District Judge : Rs.30,000/-
Civil Judges (Jr. & Sr. Divisions) : Rs.20,000/-
And the permissible user shall be :
District Judges : Rs.2000/- per month
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 369
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
Civil Judges : Rs.1500/- per month
inclusive of internet data package.
(b) At the request of the Judicial Officers, the mobile phone
handset shall be replaced once in three years.
(c) The Judicial Officers shall be given option to retain the old
mobile phone handset at a price to be determined as per
the guidelines prescribed by the Registry of High Court.
(d) The existing facilities in so far as they are more beneficial
by virtue of the order issued by some of the State
Governments/UTs shall be continued notwithstanding the
above recommendations.
iii. Office Telephone:
Regarding telephone connection to the office, the present
arrangement shall continue.”
79. The recommendation is reasonable and is accepted.
21. Transfer Grant
80. The summary of the recommendations of the SNJPC reads as follows:
“1. On transfer, the composite transfer grant shall be equivalent
to one month’s basic pay.
2. If the transfer is to a place at a distance of 20 kilometres
or less or within the same city (if it involves actual change
of residence), the transfer grant shall be 1/3 rd of the
basic pay.
3. For the transportation of personal effects, the O.M.
dated 13.07.2017 (annexed as Appendix I) issued by the
Department of Expenditure; Government of India pursuant
to the recommendations of VII CPC shall be applicable.
4. In case of transportation by road, the admissible amount
shall be Rs.50/- per km. inclusive of labour charges for
loading and unloading or the actual whichever is lower.
The said amount shall be raised by 25% when the DA
increases by 50%.
5. The recommendations will come into effect from 01.01.2016.
370 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6. The Officers who have undergone transfer(s) after
01.01.2016 and their claims for transfer grant paid as
per pre-revised pay scales, shall be paid the differential
amount on the basis of revised pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016.”
81. The above recommendations are reasonable and are accordingly
accepted.
Institutionalization
82. We are of the considered view that a framework has to be set
up under the auspices of every High Court for institutionalizing
the implementation of the orders of this Court with respect to the
service conditions of the district judiciary and for implementing the
recommendations of the SNJPC, as approved. Institutionalizing the
mechanism for enforcement and implementation will have several
benefits which are set out below:
(a) The implementation of the orders of this Court will be streamlined.
A Committee set up by this Court at the level of every High
Court to act as a bridge between the High Court and the State
Government will facilitate seamless implementation;
(b) Experience indicates that this Court is flooded with individual
applications and grievances concerning pay and service
conditions leading to multiplicity of proceedings and issues.
This would be obviated by institutionalizing the process at the
level of each High Court; and
(c) An institutionalized entity can act as a body for recording and
archiving information and suggestions, maintaining a record of
difficulties faced in implementation and generating an institutional
memory which will facilitate a consultative framework for the
next Pay Commission.
83. Bearing in mind the above benefits, we hereby direct the constitution
of a Committee in each High Court for overseeing the implementation
of the recommendations of the SNJPC as approved by this Court. The
Committee shall be called the ‘Committee for Service Conditions
of the District Judiciary16’. The composition of the Committee shall
consist of the following:
16 “CSCDJ”
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 371
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
(i) Two Judges of the High Court to be nominated by the Chief
Justice of which one should be a Judge who has previously
served as a member of the district judiciary;
(ii) The Law Secretary/Legal Remembrancer;
(iii) The Registrar General of the High Court who shall serve as an
ex officio Secretary of the Committee; and
(iv) A retired judicial officer in the cadre of District Judge to be
nominated by the Chief Justice who shall act as a nodal officer
for the day to day redressal of grievances.
84. The senior most Judge nominated by the Chief Justice shall be
the Chairperson of the Committee. The Chairperson may co-opt
officers of the State Government, including the Secretaries in the
Departments of Home, Finance, Health, Personnel and Public Works,
when issues concerning these departments are being deliberated
upon and implemented. The Chairperson of the Committee may
at their discretion co-opt the Accountant General to ensure due
implementation of the recommendations of the SNJPC, as approved
by this Court. The Committee would be at liberty to consult with the
representatives of the Judges’ Association or, as the case may be,
the Retired Judges’ Association in the State.
85. The principal functions of the CSCDJ shall be to :
(i) Oversee the proper implementation of the recommendations of
the SNJPC, including pay, pension, allowances and all allied
matters as approved by this Court by its orders;
(ii) Act as a single point nodal agency for the redressal of the
grievances of the judicial officers, both serving and retired
to secure the implementation of the recommendations of the
SNJPC which have been approved by this Court;
(iii) Develop an institutional mechanism for recording and archiving
institutional concerns pertaining to pay, pension and service
conditions of the district judiciary which shall aid in the
consultative framework for subsequent Pay Commissions
constituted for judicial officers; and
(iv) Ensure that hospitals of a requisite standard with necessary
facilities are empaneled for every district in consultation with the
Secretary in the Health Department of the State Government.
372 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Collectors of the districts shall render all necessary
assistance in ensuring that the process of empanelment is
duly streamlined. The process of empanelment shall ensure
that the hospitals which are empaneled have a demonstrable
track record and possess requisite medical facilities required
for affording medical treatment of the requisite quality and care.
The Committee may also ensure the empanelment of institutions
for the purpose of carrying out medical investigations. The
Committee will prescribe the benchmarks for empanelment.
The Committee shall ensure that where medical care of the
requisite standard for specified ailments is not available in
the district concerned, treatment in respect of those ailments
may be availed of elsewhere in an empaneled hospital. The
Committee would be at liberty to take incidental measures
covering situations where officers who have served in the State
are residing outside the State. In such a case, the Committee
may consider empanelment of hospitals outside the State so
as to facilitate the availing of medical facilities.
86. Each of the CSCDJs constituted under the auspices of the High
Court shall consider the following:
(i) Formulating a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) with
specified timelines for claims and disbursal of allowances as
approved by this Court, including the payment of arrears of
salary and pension to judicial officers, pensioners and family
pensioners; and
(ii) The SOP shall, inter alia, cover the following:
(a) The nodal agency for disbursement of allowances, arrears
and other service and retiral benefits;
(b) Laying down a simplified and effective procedure for
reimbursement and disbursement of claims;
(c) Providing contact details of the nodal agency at the district
or State level;
(d) Publication of the SOP on the website of the High Court,
together with the details of the nodal officer; and
(e) Maintenance of a database of retired Judges and family
pensioners in the district judiciary with a process for
periodical updating, at least on a quarterly basis.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 373
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
87. All States and Union Territories shall now act in terms of the above
directions expeditiously. Disbursements on account of arrears of
salary, pension and allowances due and payable to judicial officers,
retired judicial officers and family pensioners shall be computed and
paid on or before 29 February 2024. The CSCDJs institutionalized
in terms of the directions issued earlier shall monitor compliance.
Each Committee working under the auspices of the High Court shall
submit its report to this Court on or before 7 April 2024 through the
Registrar General of the High Court.
88. The CSCDJs shall also verify that the earlier orders of this Court in
regard to the payment of arrears of salary and pension have been
duly implemented.
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case:
Directions issued.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "District Judiciary"Sign in to search