15.23 The Commission, in its turn, has issued a general Questionnaire
with certain specific questions as to the nature of pay scales for
Judicial Officers. We have taken into consideration the relevant
responses received from the respondents, in addition to the very useful
information furnished by the IIPA.
15.24 We have particularly borne in mind the pivotal role of Subordinate Judiciary, essential characteristics of judicial office, special qualifications required for recruitment, onerous duties and responsibilities of the post and personal sacrifice in terms of loneliness and general withdrawal from the community affairs made by Judicial Officers. We have taken into consideration the pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC and of those that have been accepted by the Central and State Governments and all other relevant principles which have bearing on the matter for determining the uniform pay structure to the three cadres in Judicial Service.
15.25 Before evolving the uniform pay scales, it is necessary to study the existing pay scales of different cadres in different States and Union Territories. They are set out hereunder:
Details of Existing Cadres and Pay Scales in different States / UTs.
State / UT
Cadre
Existing Pay Scale (Rs.)
1.
Andhra Pradesh
Junior Civil Judge
3880-130-4400-160-5200-190-6150-230-7300-280-8140
Special Grade
(after 8 years)
4140-130-4400-160-5200-190-6150-230-7300-280-8140
Special Promotion
(after 16 years)
5040-160-5200-190-6150-230-7300-280-8700
Senior Civil Judge
5040-160-5200-190-6150-230-7300-280-8700
District & Sessions Judge-Gr.II / CJM
7070-230-7300-280-10100
District & Sessions Judge-Gr.I
8140-280-10380
2.
Assam
Munsiff / Judicial Magistrate/ Sub-Divl.Judicial Magistrate
1835-50-2035-60-2395-80-2555- EB-80-2875-100-3575-125-4325
Asst. Dist. & Sessions Judge/ Chief Judicial Magistrate
3375-100-3575-125-4325-EB-125-4450-150-5200
Special Judge
3825-125-4450-150-5200-175-5900
District & Sessions Judge
3825-125-4450-150-5200-175-5900
Selection Grade :
3950-125-4450-150-5200-175-5900-200-6100
3.
Bihar
Munsiff / JMFC / JMSC
2425-75-2800-100-4000
After 10 years :
3000-100-3500-125-4500
CJM / Subordinate Judge / Sub-Divl.Judicial Magistrate
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Second level :
3700-125-4700-150-5000
Third level :
4500-150-5700
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
3700-125-4700-150-5000
Selection Grade :
4500-150-5700
Super Time Scale :
5900-200-6700
4.
Goa
Civil Judge (Jr. Branch)
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Civil Judge (Sr. Branch)
3200-100-3500-125-4625
District & Sessions Judge
4500-150-5700
5.
Gujarat
Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) / JMFC
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000(Pre-Revised)
8000-275-14050 (Revised)
Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) / CJM / Assistant Judge / Judge, SCC
3000-100-3500-125-4500
3000-100-3500-125-5000
(Pre-Revised)
10000-325-15200 (Revised)
District Judge
4100-125-5100-150-5700(Pre-Revised)
14300-400-18300 (Revised)
Judge, City Civil Court
5700 (Fixed) - (Pre-Revised)
18300 (Fixed) - (Revised)
Principal Judge
5900-200-6700 (Pre-Revised)
18400-500-22400 (Revised)
6.
Haryana
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) / CJM / Judge (SCC) / Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)- cum-JM I & II Class
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Senior Time Scale :
(after 5 years)
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Selection Grade :
(after 12 years)
4100-125-4850-150-5300
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge
3200-100-3700-125-4700-150-5600
Selection Grade :
5900-200-6700
7.
Himachal Pradesh
Sr. Sub-Judge-cum-CJM / Sub-Judge-cum-JMFC / CJM
2200-50-2400-60-2700-75-3000-100-4000
Sr. Scale (after 8 years)
3000-100-4000-125-4500
Seln.Grade (after 12 yrs.)
4125-125-5000-150-5600
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
3000-100-4000-125-5000-150-5600
Seln.Grade (after 8 yrs.)
5000-100-5900-200-6700
8.
Jammu & Kashmir
Munsiff / Judicial Magistrate
2200-75-2800-EB-100-3800
Sub-Judge / CJM
3000-100-3500-125-4500
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
3700-125-4700-150-5000
District & Sessions Judge (Selection Grade)
4500-150-6700
District & Sessions Judge
(Super Time Scale)
5100-150-6300
9.
Karnataka
Civil Judge (Junior Divn.)
2375-75-2900-100-3700-125-4450
Civil Judge (Senior Divn.)
3825-125-4700-150-5300-175-5825
District Judge
4700-150-5300-175-6000-200-6400
Super Time Scale
5825-175-6000-200-6800
10.
Kerala
Munsiff / Magistrate
2500-75-2800-100-4000
Sub-Judge / CJM
3900-125-4775-150-5075
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
5100-150-5700
Dist. Judge (Seln. Grade)
5900-150-6500-200-6700
11.
Madhya Pradesh
Civil Judges - Junior Scale
2200-75-2800-100-4000
Civil Judges - Senior Scale
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Civil Judge - SG-cum-CJM
3700-125-4700-150-5000
District Judge
(Senior Time Scale)
3200-100-3700-125-4700
District Judge in Junior Adm. Grade
3950-125-4700-150-5000
District Judge (Selection Grade)
4800-150-5700
District Judge (Senior Time Scale)
5900-200-6700
District Judge (Above STS)
7300-100-7600
12.
Maharashtra
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) / JMFC
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) / CJM
3200-100-3500-125-4625
Addl. Dist. Judge / Judge, SCC / Addl.Chief Judge, SCC
3700-125-4700-150-5000
Dist. Judge/Chief Judge, SCC
4500-150-5700
Dist.Judge (Selection Grade)
5900-200-6700
Judge, City Civil Court
5400-150-6300-200-6500
Principal Judge, CCC / Addl. Principal Judge CCC
5900-200-6700
13.
Manipur
Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) / JMFC / JMSC
2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) / CJM
3000-100-3500-125-4500
District & Sessions Judge
3700-125-4700-150-5000
14.
Meghalaya
Munsiff / Judicial Magistrate
2000-100-2500-EB-110-3050-120-3650-EB-125-4150
Asst. District & Sessions Judge / CJM
3500-125-4000-EB-135-4540-140-5100
District & Sessions Judge
3900-150-4650-EB-160-5450
15.
Mizoram
Munsiff / Judicial Magistrate
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.)/JMFC
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) / CJM
3700-125-4700-150-5000
Special Judge
4500-150-5700
District & Sessions Judge
5100-150-6300-200-6700
16.
Nagaland
Judicial Magistrate II Class & Sub-Judge
2100-60-2760-70-3600-80-4000
JMFC & Sub-Judge / CJM
2900-100-3900-125-4900
Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
3500-125-4250-140-5650
District & Sessions Judge
4500-150-5850-175-6200
17.
Orissa
Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) & Judicial Magistrate
2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500
Sub-Divl. Judicial Magistrate
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
2800-100-3600-EB-125-4350
Chief Judicial Magistrate
3000-100-3500-125-4500
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
3200-100-3700-125-4700
Selection Grade
4800-150-5700
Super Time Scale
5900-200-6700
18.
Punjab
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)/CJM / Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum- JM I & II Class
2200-70-2550-75-3000-100-4000
Sr. Scale (after 8 years)
3000-100-4000-125-4500
Seln. Gr. (after 18 yrs.)
4125-125-5000-150-5600
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge
3000-100-4000-125-5000-150-5600
Seln. Gr. (after 8 yrs.)
5000-150-5900-200-6700
19.
Rajasthan
Munsiff & JMFC
2200-75-2800-100-4000
Civil Judge-cum-JMFC
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Sr. Civil Judge-cum-JMFC
3700-125-4700-150-5000
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)-cum-CJM
4500-150-5700
District Judge / Addl. DJ
5100-150-5700-200-6300
Selection Grade :
5900-200-6700
20.
Sikkim
Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate
1820-60-2600-EB-75-3200
Sr. Scale (after 5 years)
2525-75-3200-100-4000
Seln. Gr. (after 10 yrs.)
3450-125-4700
Chief Judicial Magistrate
3450-125-4700
District & Sessions Judge
3200-100-3700-125-4700
21.
Tamil Nadu
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) / JMFC
2500-75-2800-100-4200
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
3700-125-4700-150-5000
District Judge / Additional District Judge / CJM
4500-150-5700
District Judge (STS)
5100-150-5700
22.
Tripura
Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) / Judicial Magistrate
2100-75-2250-80-2490-85-3000-90-3720-95-4100-100-5000
Selection Time Scale (after 4 yrs.)
3000-90-3720-95-4100-100-5000
Civil Judge (Senior Divn.)
3600-130-4900-150-5800
Dist. & Sessions Judge / CJM
4000-140-4700-150-5900
Selection Grade :
5900-200-6700
23.
Uttar Pradesh
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) / JMFC
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
After 5 years :
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) / CJM
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Seln. Gr. (20% of posts)
3700-125-4700-150-5000
District & Sessions Judge / Additional D & S Judge
5100-150-6300
Super Time Scale
5900-200-6700
Selection Grade
5900-200-6700
24.
West Bengal
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) / JMFC
2200-80-3000-100-4000
After 6 years :
3000-100-3500-125-4750
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) / SDJM
3000-100-3500-125-4750
After 13 years
3700-125-4950-150-5700
Dist. & Sessions Judge / CMM
3200-100-3700-125-4700 (Pre-revised)
10650-325-15850 (Revised)
After 5 years :
3950-125-4700-150-5000 (Pre-revised)
12750-375-16500 (Revised)
S G (After 9 years) :
4800-150-5700 (Pre-revised)
15100-400-18300 (Revised)
Super Time Scale
5900-200-6700 (Pre-revised)
18400-500-22400 (Revised)
Above Supertime Scale:
7300-100-7600 (Pre-revised)
22400-525-24500 (Revised)
25.
Delhi
Civil Judge / Sr. Civil Judge
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000 (Pre-revised)
8000-275-13500 (Revised)
Sr. Time Scale (after 5 yrs.)
3000-100-3500-125-4500 (Pre-revised)
10000-325-15200 (Revised)
S G (after 8 years) :
3700-125-4700-150-5000 (Pre-revised)
12000-375-16500 (Revised)
Dist. & Sessions Judge / CMM
5100-150-5700-200-6300 (Pre-revised)
16400-450-20000 (Revised)
Selection Grade
5900-200-6700 (Pre-revised)
18400-500-22400 (Revised)
Super Time Scale :
5900-200-6700 (Pre-revised)
18400-500-22400 (Revised)
26.
Pondicherry
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) / JMFC
2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500
(Pre-revised)
6500-200-10500 (Revised)
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) / CJM
3000-100-3500-125-4500 (Pre-revised)
10000-325-15200 (Revised)
Dist. Judge / Sessions Judge
3000-100-3500-125-5000 (Pre-revised)
10000-325-15200 (Revised)
27.
Lakshadweep
Munsiff-cum-JMFC
2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500
District Judge
4500-150-5700
Note : Since then some of the State Governments have revised their pay scales. However the same information has not been furnished by the High Courts / State Governments.
15.26 It will be seen that there is a wide variance in the pay structures prevailing in the various States and Union Territories. The Judicial Officers performing the same or similar nature of work are remunerated differently. We have to remove this incongruity by evolving a uniform/common pay scale, cadre-wise, to Judicial Officers in every State and Union Territory.
15.27 While evolving a pay scale to any cadre of service, it is necessary to bear in mind the length of the time scale, the period and the rate of increment, the ratio, if any, between the minimum and maximum or such other parameter of the pay scale and the desirability of introducing an 'Efficiency Bar'.
15.28 Instead of fixed pay scales, we have opted for the telescopic scales to Judicial Officers. The telescopic pay scales are preferable for the reason that experience in a lower cadre itself is a qualification for promotion to the higher cadre. This principle is also implicit in the recruitment rules of any cadre. Promotion, however, is not always definite or certain. It depends upon the various circumstances such as strength of cadre and the relative age group of persons in the cadre. There must, therefore, be a mechanism to provide a pay scale to the person in the lower cadre, which may correspond at least to the lower reaches of the scale prescribed for promotional cadre. This is in conformity with the principle that an Officer in the lower cadre is generally entrusted with more responsible work after some years of experience, and that responsibility may be near or more than that of the higher post. In such situation, the Officer should be suitably rewarded for such responsible work.
15.29 These aspects could be worked out only when we prepare a Master Pay Scale before determining the different pay scales. Hence, we have, at the first instance, gone for the Master Pay Scale.
15.30 The advantages of the Master Pay Scale are manifold. Some of them may be stated as under :
(i) The pay scale would be telescopic in nature;
(ii) In the hierarchy of cadres of posts, the bottom of the lowest of any level of the pay scale admissible to any cadre, would dip into a part of the range of the immediately next below scale. (This kind of pay scale is intended to reward the experienced Officers in the lower cadre languishing without promotion.);
(iii) It has convenient inbuilt incremental structure which would be the basis for working out the other pay scales;
(iv) The Officers who have reached a particular stage of pay would get the same increment, irrespective of the pay scale attached to their posts;
(v) The different segments of the Master Pay Scale could be formed into different pay scales according to the requirements.
15.31 The Master Pay Scale evolved by the Commission is as follows:
Rs. 9000-250-10750-300-13150-350-15950-400-19150-450-21850- 500-24850.
15.32 The Master Pay Scale has got a total span of 44 stages, the details of which are set out below:
Pay stages
1.
9000
23.
15600
2.
9250
24.
15950
3.
9500
25.
16350
4.
9750
26.
16750
5.
10000
27.
17150
6.
10250
28.
17550
7.
10500
29.
17950
8.
10750
30.
18350
9.
11050
31.
18750
10.
11350
32.
19150
11.
11650
33.
19600
12.
11950
34.
20050
13.
12250
35.
20500
14.
22550
36.
20950
15.
12850
37.
21400
16.
13150
38.
21850
17.
13500
39.
22350
18.
13850
40.
22850
19.
14200
41.
23350
20.
14550
42.
23850
21.
14900
43.
34350
22.
15250
44.
24850
NUMBER OF SCALES IN MASTER PAY SCALE :
15.33 Broadly speaking, the number of pay scales should be equal to the number of clearly identifiable levels of responsibilities. The identifiable levels in our Judicial Service are three, viz., (i) Civil Judge (Junior Division); (ii) Civil Judge (Senior Division); and (iii) District Judge.
15.34 Primarily, we have to therefore evolve three pay scales. But, since we have decided to give Assured Career Progression Scales to the first two cadres and Selection Grade Pay Scale and Super Time Pay Scale to the third cadre, we have to prepare 7 (seven) pay scales in all.
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY SCALES :
15.35 While fixing the minimum of the Master Pay Scale, we have looked into the pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC to the All India Service Officers at the entry level. We have also considered the qualification perscribed for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division); consequently, their late entry into the service.
15.36 Taking all these and other relevant factors, we have fixed Rs.9,000/- as the Minimum of the Master Pay Scale.
15.37 As to the maximum in the Master Pay Scale, we have to bear in mind that in no circumstances, the District Judge shall get more than the pay of the High Court Judge. That is the vertical cap. Taking this aspect into consideration, we have fixed a maximum of Rs.24,850/- in the Master Pay Scale.
15.38 Accordingly, the following three primary Pay Scales have been determined, cadre-wise :
CIVIL JUDGES (JR. DIVN.) : Rs.9000-250-10750-300-13150- 350-14550
CIVIL JUDGES (SR. DIVN.) : Rs.12850-300-13150-350-15950- 400-17550
DISTRICT JUDGES : Entry Level - Rs.16750-400-19150- 450-20500
15.39 We have also determined the Assured Career Progression Scheme for Civil Judges (Jr. Divn.) and Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) as follows :
CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :
I Stage : Rs. 10750-300-13150-350-14900
II Stage : Rs. 12850-300-13150-350-15950-400-17550
CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :
I Stage : Rs. 14200-350-15950-400-18350
II Stage : Rs. 16750-400-19150-450-20500
15.40 It may be noted that the II Stage ACP for Civil Judge (Junior Division) is the Pay scale of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the II Stage ACP for the Civil Judge (Senior Division) is the entry level pay scale of the District Judge.
15.41 So far as the other pay scales to the District Judge are concerned, we have recommended Selection Grade Scale of Rs.18750-400-19150-450-21850-500-22850 and Super Time Scale of Rs.22850-500-24850.
15.42 We have not provided any 'Above Super Time Scale' to the District Judges, though such pay scales are provided presently in Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. Both the States have adopted IAS Pay Rules to the Higher Judicial Service in their States and consequently, the 'Above Super Time Scale' of Rs.22400-525-24500 has been provided to the senior-most District Judges who happen to be only a fortunate few.
15.43 But our recommended Selection Grade and Super Time Scale would benefit a large number of District Judges in all States and UTs. We have recommended 25% of the cadre posts of District Judges who have put in not less than five years of service in the cadre be given the said Selection Grade Scale and they shall be called Selection Grade District Judges. We have also recommended that 10% of the Selection Grade District Judges who have put in not less than three years of service as Selection Grade District Judges be allowed Super Time Scale of pay.
15.44 Both these scales would be given by selection on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.
15.45 It may be noted that our Selection Grade Scale is apparently superior to the existing Super Time Scale of the District Judges in the said two States. Besides, the opening point and the end point in our Super Time Scale are also relatively higher than those of their 'Above Super Time Scale'.
15.46 We have also taken care to protect the interests of such of those District Judges in those two States who are in the 'Above Super Time Scale' by appropriately giving them the benefit of fixation.
47.For better understanding, we have set out below a Table and Chart indicating the mean of basic pay of the proposed scale to each cadre of Judicial Officers with reference to the pay of the High Court Judges and the Supreme Court Judges :
TABLE
Category of Judges
Monthly Mean Pay (in Rs.)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
11,775
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
15,200
District Judge (Entry Level)
18,625
District Judge (Selection Grade)
20,800
District Judge (Super Time Scale)
23,850
Judge of the High Court
26,000 (Fixed)
Chief Justice of the High Court
30,000 (Fixed)
Judge of the Supreme Court
30,000 (Fixed)
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
33,000 (Fixed)
15.48 It may be seen from the aforesaid Table and Chart that the mean of the basic pay of Civil Judges (Junior Division), Civil Judges (Senior Division), District Judges (Entry Level), District Judges (Selection Grade) and District Judges (Super Time Scale) works out respectively at 42.3%, 58.5%, 71.6%, 80% and 91.7% of the salary of the High Court Judges.
15.49 In the same Chart, it may be seen that the mean of the basic pay of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) works out at 49.4% and 63.7% of the mean basic pay of the District Judges (Super Time Scale).
15.50 We further recommend that in case the salary of the High Court Judges is revised upward at any time, the pay scales of the Judicial Officers in all the aforesaid cadres, should also be suitably revised upward by maintaining the said respective ratios.
RATE OF INCREMENT :
15.51 We have examined the granting of increment as a percentage of basic pay, but we find that such a system is operationally inconvenient. We have, therefore, adopted the system of fixed-quantum increments while evolving the Master Pay Scale.
15.52 We may also say a few words as to why we have adopted a particular rate of increment or increments in the Master Pay Scale.
15.53 Increment is a periodical increase given to employees, mainly for three reasons :
i) It is a credit to the experience gained and for better quality and quantity of work;
ii) The domestic responsibilities of employees generally increase as they grow and the increment would meet such contingency;
iii) The annual increment itself serves as an incentive to employees for putting forward sustained effort in their work.
15.54 The rate of increment in any scale would depend on its minimum, maximum and the time span. Other considerations for fixing the rate of increments would be : (a) incremental rates in the existing pay structures, and (b) price escalation in recent years especially since 1986 when most of the State Governments revised the salary structure to their employees, which was also extended to the Judicial Officers.
15.55 It is common knowledge that short time-span would give rise to complaints of stagnation, while longer time-span results in very slow increases in the pay. To avoid these two extremes, we consider that six incremental rates would be proper and ideal.
EFFICIENCY BAR :
15.56 The system of Efficiency Bar was in vogue earlier. But such a system did not serve the purpose for which it was intended. It has been observed in the past that the majority of the officials are allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar as a matter of course with little or no effective consideration of the objectives of such assessment.
15.57 It is also complained that the assessment on efficiency of an officer is likely to be based on personal prejudices and predilections. It is also stated that the Efficiency Bar has been used as an instrument of oppression on an officer who does not toe the line of his superior.
15.58 Having considered all these aspects, we are of the view that the 'Efficiency Bar' should be dispensed with. Indeed, every Association of Judicial Officers and even some High Courts are not for the system of 'Efficiency Bar'.
15.59 The supervisory power of the High Court is so vast that it could be effectively utilised by other means to deal with the incompetent, dishonest, inefficient and negligent officers. Therefore, we have not provided any 'Efficiency Bar' in any scale.
PRINCIPLES OF FIXATION OF PAY IN THE PAY SCALES RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION
60.The Commission in its Report dated 31.01.1998 has allowed interim relief to Judicial Officers of different States/UTs in varying terms to bring about near parity in the emoluments drawn by them. The interim relief allowed was ranging from 35% to 75% as per the details given below :
Name of the State / UT
Percentage on Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance of each Judicial Officer as on 1st January 1996
1.
Andhra Pradesh
35%
2.
Assam
75%
3.
Bihar
35%
4.
Haryana
40%
5.
Himachal Pradesh
40%
6.
Jammu & Kashmir
40%
7.
Karnataka
35%
8.
Kerala
35%
9.
Maharashtra
40%
10.
Manipur
40%
11.
Meghalaya
40%
12.
Mizoram
40%
13.
Nagaland
40%
14.
Orissa
40%
15.
Punjab
40%
16.
Rajasthan
40%
17.
Sikkim
45%
18.
Tamil Nadu
35%
19.
Tripura
40%
20.
Uttar Pradesh
40%
21.
West Bengal
55% - To the Officers of the Subordinate Judicial Service only.
15.61 The Commission gave the interim relief to Judicial Officers in such of the States/UTs where the benefits of the pay scales recommended by 5th CPC were not extended, because, the then object of allowing interim relief was to raise the emoluments of the beneficiaries approximately to the level of the pay scales of the 5th CPC.
15.62 We have since evolved the new pay scales to different cadres, which are termed as "our revised pay scales".
15.63 It may at once be stated that our revised pay scales are indeed better than the existing pay scales at various levels in every State, and it is, therefore, necessary to fix the existing incumbents in our revised pay scales.
15.64 We may, in this context, refer to the method adopted by the earlier Pay Commissions, both at the Centre and States, for fixation of pay whenever the new pay scales are determined. They are generally of the following two types:
(i) giving a uniform percentage increase to all; and
(ii) giving varying percentage of basic pay or varying quantum increase depending upon the length of service put in.
15.65 In certain Public Sector Undertakings, the concept of point to point fixation is also in vogue.
15.66 The formula of giving varying quantum increases depending upon the length of service confers equal benefit to all employees within each of the 'service-length groups' and, therefore, leads to clubbing of pay stages thereby equalising the junior and senior which causes resentment in the latter.
15.67 The formula of the 'point to point fixation' implies that the pay of an Officer should be fixed in the revised scale at a stage which represents the same number of increments which he had earned in the pre-revised scale. It may in effect amount to counting the entire service rendered by him in the pre-revised scale as having been rendered in the revised scale. The application of this formula of point to point fixation would lead to an anomalous situation to Officers drawing the same basic pay in different existing scales being fixed at different stages in the corresponding revised scales. This may defeat the very purpose of evolving a 'Master Pay Scale' which is based on the principle that all Officers at the same pay stage should get the same increment.
15.68 But giving a certain percentage of Basic Pay as an additionality to all Officers seems to be better as it spreads the advantage evenly among all the Officers. The procedure is also simple since the benefit is given on a percentage basis, and the service of an Officer reflected in the increments earned also gets a weightage. This formula inevitably gives weightage to the length of service of the Officer because the stage which he occupies in the existing scale reflects the length of his service. We would, therefore, like to adopt this formula.
15.69 Before we apply the said formula, it is necessary to determine the effective date on which the pay scales are to be given effect to.
EFFECTIVE DATE :
15.70 The Judicial Officers in UTs and in certain other States are already given the benefits of the pay scales of 5th CPC with effect from 1-1-1996.
15.71 Some Associations of Judicial Officers have stated that we should give the benefit of our revised pay scales with effect from the date of the original judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association Case. Some others are asking that it should be given at least from the date of the Review Judgment of the Supreme Court in that case. Likewise, the different Officers have made different demands.
15.72 The "effective date" should not be pick and choose. It should not be arbitrarily selected. It must have a nexus to the object of giving the revised pay scales. It should be uniform regard being had to the effective date on which some States have already implemented the pay scales of the 5th CPC. It should also be in conformity with such date applied to Civil Servants in general to avoid heart burning.
15.73 The Central Government servants and employees of certain State Governments have been given the benefit of the pay scales of 5th CPC with effect from 1-1-1996.
15.74 Our Commission was constituted on 21-3-1996. We commenced working only at the fag end of December 1996.
15.75 We have given Interim Relief to Judicial Officers with effect from 1-7-1996. The interim relief was confined to those Officers who are not given the benefit of pay scales recommended by 5th CPC.
15.76 We have structured our revised pay scales at 1510 AICPI level by merging the entire D.A. admissible as on 1-1-1996.
15.77 We have to, therefore, strike a balance amongst the aforesaid dates.
15.78 We consider that it is not proper to relate back the effective date to the date of judgment of the Supreme Court. Nor it is just to limit it to the date from which the interim relief has been given, though ordinarily it should be the date.
15.79 Since some of the States and the Union Territories have already given the Central pay scales to our Judicial Officers with effect from 1-1-1996, it would be necessary for us to determine the effective date for our revised pay scales as on 1-1-1996 notwithstanding the fact that the interim relief has been given with effect from 1-7-1996.
15.80 We, however, make it clear that only notional benefit would be worked out from 1-1-1996, without giving the actual financial benefit flowing therefrom. The actual monetary benefit shall be given only with effect from 1-7-1996.
15.81 We may also make it clear that the benefit of other allowances which we have recommended be given with effect from 1-11-1999, the date which we have fixed since we are presenting these Reports in November 1999.
15.82 Needless to state that the Interim Relief as such shall cease to be operative since it has been included while evolving the new pay structure.
15.83 This takes us to the methodology of the fitment formula.
15.84 As earlier indicated, we have preferred the method of giving certain percentage of Basic Pay as an additionality to all Officers. This should be so whether they are covered by the respective State Government scales or 5th CPC scales.
15.85 Taking all these factors into consideration, we are of opinion that another 10% of Basic Pay should be the basis for working out the fixation level in our revised scales. This should be in addition to the interim relief already granted by the Commission or the adoption of 5th CPC scales by some States/UTs with effect from 1-1-1996.
15.86 We are conscious of the fact that this method of fixation may not give uniform consequential benefits to Judicial Officers. It is inevitable. It is impossible to provide equal consequential benefits to each cadre with mathematical precision in view of the fact that the existing pay scales of Judicial Officers in every cadre vary from State to State. That is because of the implementation of the pay scales of the 5th CPC by some States/UTs, while giving effect to our interim relief on varying terms by other States.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS :
15.87 Taking all these factors into consideration, we recommend the following procedure for fixation of pay in our revised scales :
i) A Judicial Officer shall first be given a financial benefit of 10% over his basic pay as on 1-1-1996 in his existing pay scale.
ii) Then, compute the aggregate emoluments of the Officer as on 1-1-1996 in the following manner :
a) Basic pay in the existing scale as on 1-1-1996 plus 10% thereon.
b) Dearness Allowance admissible on the original Basic Pay on 1st January 1996 at AICPI level of 1510 (1960=100).
* c) Amounts of interim relief admissible (As recommended by this Commission).
iii) After the aforesaid calculations, the pay of the Officer in our revised scale shall be fixed as follows :
a) If the aggregate of the present emoluments as aforesaid computed is less than the minimum of the revised scale, then, it should be at the minimum of our revised scale;
* We have not given Interim Relief with effect from 1-1-1996. We have confined it only with effect from 1-7-1996. Since we propose to evolve the new pay structure with reference to 1-1-1996, it has become necessary to determine the aggregate emoluments inclusive of the interim relief. The interim relief is, therefore, taken into consideration notionally.
b) if the aggregate of the present emoluments so computed corresponds to a stage in our revised scale, at that stage of the revised scale;
c) if the aggregate of the present emoluments so computed is intermediate between two stages in the revised scale, then at the higher of the two stages; and
d) if the aggregate of the present emoluments so computed is more than the maximum of the revised scale, then at the maximum of the revised scale and the difference, if any, be treated as personal pay.
15.88 In fixing pay on the revised scale, following factors should also be taken into account :
a) In case, an Officer drawing pay in the pre-revised scale (existing scale), equal to or less than that of his senior/seniors in the same cadre and similarly appointed, draws his next increment in the revised scale on the date earlier than such senior/seniors whereby his pay is raised to a stage higher than that of such senior/seniors, the date of next increment of the senior/seniors shall be advanced to the date on which the junior officer draws his next increment;
b) In case, an Officer promoted to a higher post before 1-1-1996 draws less pay in the revised scale than his junior shall be advanced to an amount equal to the pay fixed for his junior in the higher post, from the date of promotion of the junior.
15.89 These benefits, one or the other, shall be extended, if the anomaly which we have indicated is the direct consequence of the application of the fixation principles enunciated by us.
15.90 This takes us to fixation of pay for those who are now enjoying the benefit of the 5th CPC scales. It may be noted that the 5th CPC scales have also been pegged at 1510 AICPI level as on 1-1-1996. 5th CPC had recommended 20% fixation benefit of basic pay. But the Government has allowed 40% fixation benefit while implementing, in the following manner :
a) Basic Pay as on 1-1-1996
b) D.A. as on 1-1-1996
c) First instalment of IR - Rs.100/-
d) Second instalment of IR - 10% of Basic Pay
e) Fixation benefit of 40% of Basic Pay as on 1-1-1996.
15.91 Even in all such cases, allow another 10% fitment (additionality) benefit on the basic pay as on 1-1-1996.
15.92 By aggregating the sum as aforestated, the pay of the Officer shall be refixed as per the principles enunciated earlier.
15.93 Date of Next Increment in the Revised Scale :
a) We also recommend that the next increment of an Officer in the revised scale shall be granted on the date he would have drawn the increment, had he continued in the existing scale.
b) If an Officer draws his next increment in the revised scale under clause (a) above and thereby becomes eligible for higher pay than his senior whose next increment falls due at a later date, then, the pay of such senior shall be refixed equal to the pay of the junior from the date on which the junior becomes entitled to higher pay. In cases where the pay of an Officer is stepped up in terms of clause (b) above, the next increment shall be granted after completing requisite qualifying service, i.e., one year.
15.94 Needless to state that an Officer who reaches stagnation level, must be given stagnation increment as prevalent in the respective States/UTs.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS :
15.95 Having made the foregoing recommendations on the pay structure, it becomes necessary to quantify the financial implications of these recommendations to every State/U.T.
15.96 This is a bit difficult task since actual strength of the Judicial Officers in each cadre at each pay stage, as on date, is not available with us. We have only the pay scale-wise number of Officers in each State/U.T.
15.97 We have, however, on the basis of data available - the difference between average yearly emoluments (i.e., pay + D.A.) of the Judicial Officers in the existing scales of pay and that on the basis of new scales of pay recommended- we have estimated the financial liability on introduction of new scales.
15.98 The available information shows that 12,771 posts on regular pay scales are in existence. While calculating the financial implications, the old scales of pay, prior to the implementation of 5th CPC scales, have been considered. Since-then, certain State Governments/UTs have revised their pay scales. In some States/UTs, 5th CPC scales have been adopted in toto while in others, the scales have been modified. Further, in some States, pay scales have been revised based on the recommendations of their own pay Commission or Official Pay Committee. If these pay scales have already been adopted, the financial liability will, to that extent, be reduced.
15.99 Introduction of measures for removal of stagnation such as ACP for both Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Civil Judges (Senior Division) and also Selection Grades and Super Time Scales for District Judges and slight variations in the grading of Judicial Officers are not taken into consideration in this calculation.
15.100 Further, the Commission, although has not made modifications in the pension and gratuity scale (except pension structure for past pensioners), the merger of D.A., I.R. and 10% fitment benefit automatically increase the financial burden on State Exchequer. Similarly, other recommendations pertaining to allowances will also entail additional expenditure, the estimation of which would not be possible.
15.101 Broadly, the totality of the additional financial burden upon the revised scales being given effect to would be of the order of Rs.95.71 crores for a year for all States/UTs. This includes the payment of IR given to the Judicial Officers and also the benefits of 5th CPC scales. Details of financial implication, State-wise, are given in the appendix. The summary of the same is given below for immediate reference :
Estimated Financial Implications of New Scales of Pay to Judicial Officers
Sl. No.
State / UT
Number of Judicial Officers
Additional Financial Burden
(Rs. in Crores)
1.
Andhra Pradesh
672
4.14
2.
Assam
221
2.05
3.
Bihar
1648
11.60
4.
Goa
44
0.34
5.
Gujarat
640
4.98
6.
Haryana
266
2.23
7.
Himachal Pradesh
94
0.70
8.
Jammu & Kashmir
162
1.45
9.
Karnataka
632
4.10
10.
Kerala
382
2.53
11.
Madhya Pradesh
988
8.26
12.
Maharashtra
1250
8.60
13.
Manipur
30
0.33
14.
Meghalaya
8
0.11
15.
Mizoram
53
0.44
16.
Nagaland
22
0.22
17.
Orissa
457
3.72
18.
Punjab
301
2.45
19.
Rajasthan
761
5.60
20.
Sikkim
12
0.12
21.
Tamil Nadu
602
3.74
22.
Tripura
73
0.45
23.
Uttar Pradesh
2239
17.37
24.
West Bengal
773
7.16
25.
Delhi
419
2.84
26.
Lakshadweep
3
0.03
27.
Pondicherry
19
0.15
Total :
12771
95.71
15.102 We are not unaware of the fact that there are equally other important calls from other departments on the States' revenue, but as the Supreme Court has observed in the All India Judges' cases, the States should not make any grievance on the little hike in the emoluments of Judicial Officers which is as important as the other two organs of the State.
15.103 We have also made a recommendation by way of substantial relief to the States - in a separate chapter - that the Central Government shall bear fifty per cent of all the expenditure of the Subordinate Courts, including but limited to, the emoluments of the Judicial Officers, the Court Staff, and the infrastructure with proper furniture and fixture in Courts.
* * * * *
16. THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE STATES
SHOULD BE JOINT RESPOSIBILITY
OF
THE CENTRE
AND
THE STATES
16.1 Administration of justice, constitution and organisation of all courts, except the Supreme Court and High Courts, was originally included in the State List under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. But, by the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976, it has been brought to the Concurrent List. Entry 11A in the Concurrent List reads :
"11A. Administration of justice; Constitution and Organisation of all Courts, except the Supreme Court and High Courts."
16.2 Let us turn to the Constitutional provisions relating to Subordinate Courts :
Chapter VI Part VI of the Constitution provides for Subordinate Courts. The relevant Articles may be read :
"233. Appointment of district judges - (1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
"(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment."
"234. Recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service - Appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
"235. Control over subordinate courts - The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law.
"236. Interpretation - In this Chapter -
(a) the expression "district judge" includes judge of a city civil court, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge and assistant sessions judge;
(b) the expression "judicial service" means a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of district judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of district judge.
"237. Application of the provisions of this Chapter to certain class or classes of magistrates - The Governor may by public notification direct that the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and any rules made thereunder shall with effect from such date as may be fixed by him in that behalf apply in relation to any class or classes of magistrates in the State as they apply in relation to persons appointed to the judicial service of the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the notification."
16.3 It will be seen from the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution that the State Government has no control over the judges of District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto. It has no power either in their selection, appointments, posting, promotion, transfer, grant of leave or any one of their service conditions except the appointment is made in the name of the Governor in consultation with the High Court.
16.4 In sum, the Government has neither the power to interfere nor interdict the matters pertaining to appointment and service conditions of the Judicial Officers. The advice of the High Court in all such matters is binding on the Government. The Government, however, is liable to meet all the expenditure of the Subordinate Judiciary, including the infrastructure of Courts, quarters for Judicial Officers and their emoluments.
16.5 Similar is the position with regard to staff of the Courts. The Public Service Commission or the State Level Recruitment Committee selects them and High Court / District Judges would post them in different Courts. Their service conditions are regulated with the consultation of the High Courts.
16.6 Every State Government is pleading inability to meet the increasing financial burden of the judicial administration. Even the additional courts sought by the High Court are not sanctioned. The Courts in Moffusil places are located in dilapidated buildings, with no adequate furniture either for Judges or for lawyers. The old ricketty furniture, is a sight to see in the Moffusil Courts. Such Courts, instead of awe inspiring to the litigant public, have become pathetic sight to see.
16.7 The Central Government recently has included the infrastructure of Courts as "planned item" to enable them to provide half of the expenditure required for the purpose and the States sharing the other half of the expenditure.
16.8 We thought that this partnership between the Centre and the States has improved the much needed infrastructure of Courts and Quarters for Judicial Officers. But, we have been informed that, it is not so.
16.9 In order to ascertain the actual state of affairs of the conditions of Courts in all States, we invited the views of High Courts and State Governments by formulating the following Questions in our general Questionnaire :
61. Are the Courts at Tehsil/District Level are properly maintained and adequately furnished? Please narrate the deficiency if any and suggest remedies.
61.2 Recently, the infrastructure of Courts has been made a planned item. To what extent, has this improved the situation?
16.10 The question-wise replies received from the respondents are briefly summarised herein below :
16.10.1 ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT :
61. By and large yes. Repairs are being carried out by R&B Department as and when requisitioned by the Unit Heads. The High Court has also been taking up with the Chief Engineer (Building), Hyderabad for effecting repairs to the Court Buildings. Further the State Government has been providing a sum of Rupees one crore every year under MINOR WORKS. High Court is according sanctions for major repairs providing amenities such as additional office accommodation, water supply, toilet facilities, party sheds etc., in the Subordinate Court every year.
The reports from Districts reveal that the response from R&B officials for carrying out maintenance work is not prompt.
61.2 Construction of Court Buildings and Residential Quarters for Judicial Officers has been treated as a Centrally sponsored Scheme from the year 1993-94 onwards and the expenditure on the scheme is to be borne by the Central Government and the State Government on 50:50 basis. This measure has substantially helped in building up new Court complexes, residential quarters.
16.10.2 GAUHATI HIGH COURT :
61. The Courts at the Munsiff/District level are not properly maintained. they are not properly furnished. Lack of maintenance of Courts is due to inadequate funds with the P.W.D. to maintain the Courts.
61.2 Although infrastructure of the Courts has been made a planned item in the Budget, the amount received by the State Government for the infrastructure of the Courts is not made available by the State Government promptly. As a result, any development in the infrastructure has to await till funds are received from the State Government.
16.10.3 PATNA HIGH COURT :
61. Not at all. Furniture are not provided at most of the places. Water supply position is not proper.
61.2 To no appreciable and perceptible extent.
16.10.4 DELHI HIGH COURT :
61. Majority of the Courts in Delhi are housed in courts building at Tis Hazari. There are 138 proper court rooms and 89 courts are in improvised rooms which were set up after converting the office room to meet the acute shortage of court accommodation. The improvised court rooms lack basic necessities of chamber and toilets. As a result a group of judicial officers have to share their toilet or use public/litigants' toilets. Even the lady judicial officers do not have chamber and toilet facility in improvised rooms. It causes great inconvenience and hardship to them. Most of the rooms are without proper light and air and are unhygenic.
Similar is the situation in Patiala House which was a residential building and it was converted into courts. Most of the court rooms are like improvised court room of Tis Hazari. They are very small, and dingy and without proper light and air.
Some furniture of course has been supplied to the courts and chambers of the judicial officers but it is not befitting to their status and it is far short of their need.
Above all over one lakh of litigants, lawyers and other public visit Tis Hazari Courts every day. Tis Hazari Court building which was built in 1956, for the use of few courts, is now grossly inadequate for the present need. As a result public conveniences are also inadequate to meet the demand of lakhs of daily visitors creating insanitary and unhygenic conditions in the building. The problem is aggravated by poor maintenance of the building by the PWD. The demand for more accommodation for making proper court rooms, public conveniences etc., has fallen flat on the deaf ears of the Government.
Recently under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court some more rooms which were in occupation of civil adminsitrative offices of the Government in Tis Hazari building were given but they have not solved the problem of shortage of court rooms etc., at all.
61.2 As far as Delhi is concerned, it has not made any change except that a new court complex has come up at Karkardooma. But more court rooms are needed in Tis Hazari and Patiala House Court complexes with all ancillary facilities.
16.10.5 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT :
61. The Courts at district level as well as City level are not properly maintained nor adequately furnished. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had to pass orders directing the State Government to immediately provide necessary funds for the furniture, stationery, maintenance of the building etc. Even after directions of Court, no satisfactory steps have been taken by the Government to maintain court buildings or to furnish them adequately. The Government is always reluctant to part with money for the maintenance of the building, furniture, stationery etc., of the Courts. Many of the Courts do not have even the place for dias for the Presiding Officers.
61.2 Though infrastructure of the Court has been made a planned item, it has not worked satisfactorily. Nor has it improved the situation at all, though the Central Government is required to bear half of the costs of the Court Building. In fact, the State Government is not prepared to provide other half of the costs and this has resulted into stagnation.
16.10.6 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH :
61. The Courts at District/Tehsil level are properly maintained and adequately furnished except the Courts at Divisional Headquarter at Mandi, where the Courts are housed in a very old building, which has virtually out-lived its life. The Court of Sub Judge at Jawali is housed in a rented private building. The Court of Sub Judge at Anni is housed in a Court room spared by the Revenue Department and there is no proper accommodation for the office. A few other Courts are also housed in old buildings rendered unworthy of being used as Court/Office rooms. However, the process for construction of new Court buildings at such places has been initiated and the cases are on different stages. In the near future appropriate and adequate accommodation will be available to all the existing Courts.
The State Government shall provide all the necessary infrastructure for commencing the functioning of the Courts in any place and also provide all facilities necessary for the existing Courts to function properly.
61.2 Though in the recent past, visible progress has been made in providing infrastructure of Courts, however, during the last year for want of adequate funds, virtually no headway could be made for advancing the process of providing infrastructure of Courts at various places including even such places where the construction was near completion. Ignoring this exception, making of infrastructure of Courts a planned item has definitely led to improve the situation.
16.10.7 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR :
61. The Courts are by and large furnished with meagre funds available with the High Court. However, these Courts are not properly maintained and adequately furnished by the State Government.
61.2 In the State of Jammu & Kashmir, it is not a planned item. As the Scheme is not being implemented in its true spirit and funds are not channelised to provide infrastructural facility for Courts, therefore, no improvement can be noticed in the situation.
16.10.8 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA :
61. The Courts at Taluk/District are not adequately furnished and the scale of furniture fixed for the Courts is inadequate and a proposal has been made for enhancement of furniture to the Courts.
61.2 Inclusion of infrastructure of Courts in the planned item is bound to improve the situation. However, desired result has not been achieved as sufficient funds are not provided in Karnataka. A proposal has been made for providing adequate infrastructure of Courts by sanctioning Rupees One Crore and the said proposal is pending before the Government.
16.10.9 KERALA HIGH COURT :
61. The Court buildings are not properly maintained nor adequately furnished. Most of such Court buildings are very old. Proposal for construction of buildings wherever found necessary is pending. Wherever land is readily available, administrative sanction has been recommended. Enough funds are not available and unless funds to the tune of a few hundred crores are immediately available, the proposals cannot be implemented. This is a major problem which has to be dealt with seriously.
The Courts are not adequately furnished. Old ricketty chairs are a common sight in all the courts. Provision for infrastructural facilities to the courts should be made a plan item so as to make available to the courts a suitable and conducive working atmosphere.
61.2 Buildings are being constructed for Courts and quarters under the plan 50 per cent centrally sponsored scheme, subject to availability of land and allotment of funds in a phased manner. Because of financial constraints, the desired effect has not been achieved.
16.10.10 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
61. No, because of lack of adequate funds.
61.2 Yet to be implemented in our State.
16.10.11 BOMBAY HIGH COURT :
61. No. In most of the Districts in Maharashtra, the Courts do not have adequate buildings and furniture.
61.2 The effects are yet to be felt.
16.10.12 ORISSA HIGH COURT :
61. Courts at Tahasil and District level are not properly maintained and adequately furnished. This is due to want of sufficient fund provided by the State Government.
61.2 After the infrastructure of courts has been made a planned item, now court buildings and residential quarters are constructed.
16.10.13 PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT :
61. The Courts at Tahsil/District level are not at all properly maintained. Neither there are proper court rooms nor sufficient furniture have been provided for court staff, lawyers and litigants nor there is any proper provision for toilets in court complexes. Most of the judges also do not have proper chambers. Generator sets have also not been installed in order to meet out the sudden failure of electricity.
61.2 Although the infrastructure of courts has been made a planned item, yet the results are far from satisfactory and it needs more attention to improve the situation.
16.10.14 RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT :
61. All the Courts at Tahsil and in the District are not properly maintained and adequately furnished. The Courts are not provided with adequate budget for furniture to be provided in chamber, court-room and staff-room. At many places sufficient space for chamber, court-room and staff-room is not provided.
In some of the Courts even under-trials are not provided proper place in the court premises. At so many places, litigant-sheds are not constructed by the State Government.
61.2 After making infrastructure of courts as a planned-item the situation has improved to a little extent and gradual process of improvement is going on in a phased plan which will take time.
16.10.15 HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM :
61. At present in this State new buildings have been constructed or are under construction. Central financial assistance properly utilised.
61.2 In this State the process is on. The situation is improving.
16.10.16 HIGH COURT OF MADRAS :
61. With the available Government funds, Courts are maintained but still more has to be done. Enough funds have to be allocated considering Judiciary as one of the wings of State.
61.2 As the infrastructure of courts has been made a planned item, things have improved in getting funds from the Government.
16.10.17 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT :
61. At Tehsil/District level, efforts are made to maintain and furnish the courts properly with whatever sum is made available to the court by the Government but for regular maintenance of residential and non-residential buildings it is required that P.W.D. or some other Government agency should undertake this work under the order of the Government.
61.2 After the infrastructure of Courts, has been made a planned item an overall improvement is being felt gradually.
16.10.18 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT :
61. The buildings neither properly maintained nor adequately furnished. Most of the buildings are worn out and some of them leak waters at the time of Rainy Season, as for example, in Alipore Criminal Court buildings. Court rooms are insufficient and stuffy. There is very scanty seating arrangement not only for the litigants but also for the lawyers in some of the Courts. Furniture are not at all sufficient. Some of the buildings are so much dilapidated as those are unfit for using as Court rooms although courts have to run therein. There have been incidents of falling down of plasters of the ceiling missing the head of Judge.
Adequate fund should be provided for remodelling the buildings by phased programme considering the urgency.
61.2 Some programmes have been taken up towards improvements of the situation to provide better infrastructure to the Courts in respect of the court building, residential quarters for the matter remained stalled for sizeable periods of time due to want of fund.
16.11 From the comments received from the High Courts, it will be clear that Court buildings, almost everywhere, are in a bad shape. They are poorly maintained with ricketty furniture. Even after the infrastructure of Courts has been made a planned item, things have not substantially improved, barring in one or two States.
16.12 It is the uniform opinion of most of the High Courts that the State Government is always reluctant to part with money for the maintenance of the buildings, providing furniture, stationery etc., for the Courts and for construction of new buildings.
16.13 We, however, take it that it may not be deliberate design of the State Governments, but evidently due to the financial crunch.
16.14 Let us turn to the views of the State Governments.
THE STATE GOVERNMENTS :
16.15 All the State Governments, save Kerala and Maharashtra Governments, have reported that there is no deficiency in the infrastructure of Courts.
16.16 It seems to us that they appear to be blissfully ignorant of the pathetic condition of the Court buildings with miserable furniture and fixtures.
16.17 The Kerala Government and Maharashtra Government, however, are frank enough to admit that the funds crunch is the greatest problem to improve the infrastructure of Courts and Quarters for Judicial Officers.
16.18 We are of opinion, if things are allowed to continue in this manner, it is neither good for the judiciary nor for the litigant public. A lot of new Courts are required to be established by increasing the Judge strength in all cadres to clear the arrears and to meet the ever-increasing inflow of cases.
16.19 What then is the remedy?
16.20 There is no point in whipping the States alone.
16.21 We have adopted one set of Courts both for the States and Centre, unlike in the United States.
16.22 In the United States of America, there are two sets of Courts. There are Federal Courts for enforcement of Federal Laws. There are State Courts which are exclusively concerned with State Laws. The Federal Courts are maintained by the Federal Government while State Courts are maintained by the State Governments. These Courts are functioning side by side in every State.
16.23 But our Courts are concerned with State Laws as well as Central Laws.
16.24 There are quite a large number of Central enactments, which we have set out in the list appended hereto as Annexure. It runs into a long list of about 340. The major Acts like Procedural Codes, Indian Evidence Act and Indian Penal Code may be common both to the States and the Centre. Some of the Acts may be obsolete, but bulk of the Central Laws remain live. The additions to that list are made every year by the Parliament.
16.25 This being the position, we fail to see why the State Governments alone be burdened with the financial liability of the Subordinate Courts.
16.26 Indeed, this question was repeatedly presented before us during the course of hearing. The representatives of the following State Governments have pleaded with us for recommending that the Centre should equally share expenditure on Subordinate Courts :
(1) Sri Manish Gupta, IAS, Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal.
(2) Sri K. Mohan Chandran, IAS, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Kerala.
(3) Sri Sudhir Sharma, IAS, Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Tripura.
(4) Sri K. Manoj Kumar, Joint Secretary, Government of Tripura.
(5) Sri Sudhir Kumar, Secretary, Appointments, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
(6) Sri Shiv Prakash, Joint Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
(7) Sri M.R. Hegde, Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.
(8) Sri M.L. Sharma, Additional Secretary (Home), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
(9) Sri K. Pradeep Chandra, IAS, Secretary (Finance), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
16.27 We find considerable force in their submissions. Efficient justice delivery system is sine qua non for maintenance of law and order. Speedy justice is one of the guaranteed fundamental rights to citizens. It must, therefore, be the joint responsibility of the Central and the State Governments to ensure that the judicial administration does not suffer from any handicaps.
16.28 The Judiciary is not a heavy burden either on the State or the Centre. Unlike in other Departments, more than half of the amount which is spent on Indian Judiciary is raised from the Judiciary itself by means of Court Fees, Stamp duty and miscellaneous matters.
16.29 That apart, as we have highlighted in the "Preface" to our Report, the expenditure on judiciary in our country in terms of GNP is relatively low. It is not more than 0.2 per cent. In Korea, it is more than 0.2 per cent; in Singapore, it is 1.2 per cent; in U.K. it is 4.3 per cent; and in U.S.A. it is 1.4 per cent.
16.30 Therefore, we trust and hope that the Central Government will not make any grievance on our proposal.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS :
16.31 For the reasons aforesaid and in the interest of strengthening and promoting the independence of the justice delivery system, we recommend as follows :
1) Each State must prepare a 5-Year Plan, to improve the existing infrastructure of Courts, construction of new Courts, providing furniture, fixtures, library etc., to all Courts and for construction of Quarters for all Judicial Officers.
2) The Central Government must share half of the annual expenditure on Subordinate Courts and Quarters for Judicial Officers.
3) We have been told by the representatives of North Eastern States and Sikkim that about 90 to 92 per cent of the expenditure in their States is met by the Central Government under the provisions of 'Special Category of States'. We make it clear that our aforesaid recommendation is without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the North Eastern States and the State of Sikkim.
* * * * *
17. ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION SCHEME (ACP)
AND FUNCTIONAL SCALE
17.1 During our preliminary study, we have received number of requests from the Judicial Officers that they should be accorded advance career progression scales.
17.2 In order to ascertain the views and remarks on this aspect, we have specifically provided the following Question in our general Questionnaire.
Q.21 In States like Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal, there are Selection Grade, Supertime Scale and ‘Above Supertime Scale’ related to number of years of service in the cadre of District Judges.
In the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Civil Judges (Junior Division) are entitled to a time-bound scale after 8 years of service and a special promotional post in a higher scale after 16 years of service, if stagnated in the same post. In Haryana State, there is senior scale after 5 years and Selection Grade after 12 years of service. In Punjab State also such scales are given after 8 and 18 years of service. In Uttar Pradesh, there is higher scale after 5 years of service.
In West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, I.A.S. Pay Rules of 1954 as amended up-to-date are made applicable to Higher Judicial Service.
What are your suggestions for allowing time-bound pay scales for career progression. Should it be provided to every cadre? If so, please justify with cogent reasons and suggest such time-bound pay scales and eligibility period for such entitlement.
17.3 The High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Patna (Bihar), Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Bombay (Maharashtra), Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) and Calcutta (West Bengal) have favoured introduction of ‘Career Progression Time Bound Pay Scales’ to prevent stagnation due to absence of promotional avenues. They have suggested that the benefit of higher time bound scale should not be automatic irrespective of past record of service; there should be a screening committee to examine the individual cases to evaluate the performance and those who come up to the expected level would be given such benefits.
17.4 However, the High Courts of Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh are against giving any ‘Time Bound Promotion Scheme’, since according to them, such benefits would generally tend to develop complacency in the Officers.
17.5 Almost all the Service Associations have pleaded for time bound pay scales at each interval of 5 to 10 years in each cadre.
17.6 It may be stated that an ACP system is intended to assure pay progression to Officers within the time-bound schedule. The scheme is designed to allow an officer the pay upgradation when functional considerations do not permit promotion in the cadre-hierarchy. With ACPs, the Officer moves into the next higher scale. The basic hypothesis here is that a person of considerable experience needs to be suitably rewarded to keep his tempo of work with high moral values and ought not to be allowed to stagnate or degenerate.
17.7 The Commission has noted that there is lack of promotional opportunities to Judicial Officers in view of the limited number of posts. It is, therefore, necessary to provide them some form of ‘in-situ’ arrangements on a time-bound basis.
17.8 At the outset, the ACP, which we intend to propose for the first two cadres, is not linked to the availability of the promotional posts. It is not restricted to the percentage of posts in the cadre. Nor it is on functional basis. The scheme is intended to afford reasonable opportunity to all the Officers in the grade to get financial upgradation in a time-frame.
17.9 OUR RECOMMENDATION :
A. Civil Judge (Junior Division) :
We recommend the following two Assured Career Progression Scales to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) :
i) Rs.10750-300-13150-350-14900 after 5 years of continuous service from the date of entry.
ii) Rs.12850-300-13150-350-15950-400-17550 after completion of another 5 years of continuous service.
We have recommended the second ACP with a definite purpose that a Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at the end of the 10th year of continuous service, shall be able to get the initial pay scale of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) to avoid frustration due to stagnation, if there is no promotion forthcoming to him in the meanwhile.
B. Civil Judge (Senior Division) :
We recommend the following two Assured Career Progression Scales to the Civil Judge (Senior Division):
i) Rs.14200-350-15950-400-18350 after 5 years of continuous service.
ii) Rs.16750-400-19150-450-20500 after completion of another 5 years of continuous service.
Here again, we have recommended the second ACP to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), which is equivalent to the entry level pay scale of the District Judge to avoid disappointment and frustration for want of promotional opportunity.
This conferment of benefits by way of ACPs should not be automatic but on the appraisal of their work and performance by a Committee of Senior Judges of the High Court constituted for the purpose.
We further recommend that these financial upgradations should not be provided to those who have declined regular promotion on any personal ground.
We also recommend that in case where an Officer in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) or Civil Judge (Senior Division) who has been provided the ACP, refuses functional promotion to the higher cadre in his turn of seniority and merit, he shall be reverted to the original pay scale.
C. District Judges:
We recommend the following financial upgradations on functional basis:
i) Selection Grade Scale of Rs.18750-400-19150-450-21850-500-23850.
This scale would be available to 25% of the cadre posts and would be given to those having not less than five years of continuous service in the cadre.
ii) Super Time Scale of Rs.22850-500-24850.
This Scale would be available to holders of 10% of the Selection Grade District Judges and would be given to those who have put in not less than three years of continuous service as Selection Grade District Judges.
We recommend that both these scales be given on the assessment of merit-cum-seniority.
* * * * *
18. DEARNESS ALLOWANCE - A PERSPECTIVE
18.1 Dearness Allowance (DA) is an allowance paid to employees to compensate them for erosion of real income / wage due to inflation, which they were getting on a particular bench-mark date. This bench-mark date is generally the date from which a pay structure / a set of pay scales is given effect to.
18.2 The increase in the cost of living and the consequent erosion of income is measured in terms of a consumer price index number and, DA to be sanctioned to employees is determined on the basis of the percentage increase in that index or the point-factor system.
18.3 The very concept of DA is a post-Second World War phenomenon. Initially, the frequency and quantum of DA given were more or less on an adhoc basis, by way of response to demand of employees for wage increases to mitigate their hardship. Later on, the payment of DA was linked to a Consumer Price Index number. Consequently, a formula came to be evolved, with reference to :
a) the basis for computation of increase in cost of living,
b) the frequency of DA revision and
c) the extent to which neutralisation of such increase would be given.
18.4 Periodical Committees / Commissions were constituted in the past by the Central Government to examine the question of payment of DA to the employees. The Committees’ / Commissions’ recommendations were generally accepted and implemented by the Government of India and the State Governments also followed it.
18.5 The III Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommended payment of DA whenever the CPI rose by 8 points over the index of 200 (with base 1960 = 100). This principle was changed in 1986 as per the recommendations of the IV CPC. The IV CPC recommended the grant of DA on a 'percentage system' of the basic pay.
18.6 Similarly, the extent of neutralisation of price increases given to various categories of employees has also undergone change from time to time. However, the general pattern adopted, all over the country is to give the benefit of 100% neutralisation to the lower categories of employees, with tapering scale of neutralisation to higher categories of officials. The extent of neutralisation granted with effect from 1-1-1973 (based on the Report of III CPC) ranged from 100 per cent to 35 per cent. But, upon the recommendation of the IV CPC, this method of neutralisation has been altered with effect from 1-1-1986.
18.7 As per the recommendation of the IV CPC, DA was admissible twice a year, that is, on 1st January and 1st July and each instalment of DA was calculated with reference to the percentage increase in the 12 monthly average of All India Consumer Price Index (AICPI) (base 1960) over the average index of 608, which was the base for the pay scales recommended by IV CPC. Thus the extent of neutralisation based on the recommendation of IV CPC ranged from 100 per cent to 65 per cent. This system of tapering scale of neutralisation was rested on the assumption that employees drawing higher salary would be able to absorb the impact of price rise to certain extent, but lower categories of employees need full protection in the interest of social justice, since they cannot withstand the effects of price-rise.
18.8 However, it may be noted that even 100 per cent neutralisation may only protect the real value of wages of employees as on a fixed, earlier bench-mark date, but it does not add to their real income. Similarly, the higher salaried officials would feel the pinch of erosion in their real income on the lower percentage of neutralisation. Besides, over a period of time, such tapering neutralisation of DA would seriously distort the relativity of pay scales that have been determined after taking into account factors like qualifications, training, nature of work, degree of responsibilities etc.
18.9 The anomaly in the differential neutralisation has been highlighted in the report of the Karnataka IV Pay Commission in 1992, of which, the Chairman of the present Commission was also its Chairman. There, the IV Karnataka Pay Commission observed :
"We are highlighting these issues to bring out the unfairness which is inherent in the present scheme of neutralisation of DA for price rise. We have refrained from making any specific recommendation in this regard mainly because the scheme has been evolved on All India basis and the State Government has adopted it. We only hope that the future Pay Commission appointed by Government of India will take note of the drawbacks in the scheme of neutralisation of DA for rising price and formulate a more objective scheme based on fairness."1
18.10 The V CPC has also realised the injustice in the graduated scale of neutralisation formulae. It has observed :
"Inflation neutralisation on a graduated scale in the present circumstances will be anachronistic and unduly unjust to senior officers.
It went a step further and said :
" . . . . . . . the Government’s conscious intervention in removal of the unjust practice of differential neutralisation of DA is a must. Accordingly, we recommend that inflation neutralisation be made uniform at 100 per cent at all levels."
1. Report of the Karnataka Fourth Pay Commission, Chapter XV, page 432-433.
18.11 The V CPC, among other things recommended that AICPI for Industrial workers to be continued as the basis for the purposes of calculating DA and the existing practice of using 12-monthly average of AICPI for calculating DA also to be continued.
18.12 The Government of India and also the State Governments in general have accepted and implemented the principles enunciated by the V CPC.
18.13 We consider that the same principle of neutralisation should be extended to Judicial Officers also.
OUR RECOMMENDATION :
18.14 We recommend that the same DA formula as being implemented at present to the Central Government employees be followed in the case of Judicial Officers, in every State / UT.
* * * * *
19. ALLOWANCES, AMENITIES AND ADVANCES *
ELECTRICITY AND WATER CHARGES :
19.1 The Judicial Officers do the office / court work even in their residence. So, the High Courts of Patna, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have suggested that electricity and water charges relatable to the residential office must be borne by the State.
19.2 Almost all the Service Associations have urged the Commission to recommend that the entire electricity and water charges payable by the Judicial Officers are to be borne by their State Governments.
19.3 But this has been opposed by most of the State Governments.
OUR RECOMMENDATION :
19.4 We have examined this matter carefully. We consider that since Judicial Officers are required to perform the judicial work / administrative work in home office also, it is necessary that certain portion of electricity and water charges should be borne by the State Government.
_________________________________________________________________
* The directions issued by the Supreme Court with regard to allowances and other related matters in ALL INDIA JUDGES€ ASSOCIATION CASE ((1993) 4 SCC 288) are mere aids and incidental to and supplemental of the main direction and intended as a transitional measure till a comprehensive National Policy is evolved. Each High Court / State Government can, therefore, adopt these recommendations of the Commission by appropriate policy rules framed and thereupon, the directions issued by the Supreme Court need not be followed. [See: (1999) 4 SCC 235].
19.5 We accordingly recommend that atleast 50% of charges of electricity and water consumed by the concerned Judicial Officer in his residential accommodation be paid by the State Government.
19.6 The payment by reimbursement shall be made to the Judicial Officers on quarterly basis by the Controlling Unit Officers i.e. District Judge, upon production of the receipts for having paid the bills.
* * * * *
HOME ORDERLY
19.7 The system of providing Orderlies in the residence of Judicial Officers is prevalent in some of the States like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamilnadu. What is being done is one of the court Peons / Attenders is posted at the residence of Judicial Officers. But there are complaints that those Attenders are being misused and treated as regular domestic servants. In many cases, the Judicial Officers invite trouble when such attendants resist anything but office-related work. This has led to departmental enquiry against the Judicial Officers. Some have even lost the chances of their promotion. Such incidents are highlighted in Newspapers much to the embarrassment of the officers.
19.8 In some States, the Judicial Officers are paid cash allowance from Rs.500/- to Rs.750/- to engage a servant of their own.
19.9 Against this background, the Commission had formulated the following question :
"Are the Judicial Officers provided Home Orderly? Instead, would you suggest cash payment to Judicial Officers to engage Home Orderly of their choice?"
19.10 The replies received may be summarised as follows :
19.10.1 Most of the High Courts have suggested that the Judicial Officers be allowed to engage an Attender (as Home Orderly) of their choice with corresponding reduction in the number of office attenders.
19.10.2 Even the Service Associations have urged that instead of official home orderly, all Judicial Officers be paid in cash equal to the emoluments of a Group 'D' official to engage a servant of their own choice. He should not be governed by the Service Rules or official control.
19.10.3 We have considered carefully the suggestions and comments of the High Courts / Associations and State Governments on this issue. In our opinion, the official Attender should not be misused by the judicial officers in their own interest. We consider that the judicial officers must be free to engage a servant of their choice for all types of work at the Home and Home Office:
19.11 OUR RECOMMENDATIONS :
a) Payment of Home Orderly Allowance in lieu of Home Orderly (called as Home Orderly Allowance) be paid to every Judicial Officer with liberty to appoint a person of his choice who would be wholly under his control. Judicial Officers are, however, advised to appoint a Home Orderly-cum-Driver or preferably an Orderly who knows driving so that his services may be utilised even for driving in case of need, if the Officer owns a car.
b) Every Judicial Officer be paid Home Orderly Allowance of Rs.2500/- p.m. This allowance is approximately equal to only the basic pay of a Group 'D' Government employee who is also entitled to D.A. and other allowances. Since we are not recommending Home Orderly to be appointed as Government Servant, we have recommended a consolidated sum of Rs.2500/-.
c) Neither the High Court nor the State Government is responsible for the regularisation / absorption of such person and he remains in service only as long as the concerned Officer requires him / her.
d) The Judicial Officer must every month produce to the office, the name and address of the person appointed as Home Orderly and the acknowledgement of the person for having received the salary.
e) The Home Orderly Allowance shall be drawn by the Judicial Officer along with his pay and other allowances in his monthly pay bill.
* * * * *
NEWSPAPER / MAGAZINE
19.12 Supply of Newspapers / Magazines to Judicial Officers is intended to widen their wisdom since they mainly confine themselves to Law Journals, Court files - to the exclusion of the world wide information. Besides, the Newspapers are the windows through which one could keep himself abreast with the socio-economic life of the community. Sometimes the Newspapers give the substance of the leading judgements of the Apex Court and High Courts.
19.13 It is in this backdrop, the Commission had set out Question No.27 which reads as under :
Q.27. It is suggested that one National and one local newspaper be provided to every Judicial Officer at the cost of the State. Do you justify this proposal?
19.14 The replies received from all High Courts except the High Court of Patna are in favour of giving the said facility to Judicial Officers. Indeed, they suggest that one magazine also should be provided to the Judicial Officers. But the High Court of Patna has indicated that only Controlling Officers should get this benefit while the High Court of Kerala has not furnished its comments.
19.15 All the Service Associations have urged to recommend free supply of Newspaper / Magazine to all Judicial Officers.
19.16 Even the State Governments, viz., Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tamilnadu have favoured the free supply of Newspaper / Magazine.
19.17 The State Governments of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal etc., have stated that as per the directions of the Apex Court, the Judicial Officers are already supplied with Law Journals or paid cash in lieu of that, and therefore, they are not in favour of free supply of Newspaper to them in view of limited resources of the State.
19.18 It may be stated that certain level of Officers in the State and Central Governments are provided with Newspapers / Magazines at State cost.
19.19 A proficiency in one's regional language is imperative for any citizen. At the same time, we should not lose sight of the necessity of proficiency in English as almost all Acts, State and Central and Law Reports and Commentaries, are in English Language.
OUR RECOMMENDATION :
20.We recommend that all Judicial Officers be supplied Newspaper / Magazine at State cost as indicated below :
21.
Level of Officer
Entitlement
Newspaper
Magazine
Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.)
One National and one Regional
One
Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.)
One National and one Regional
One
District Judge
One National and one Regional
One
19.21 The Judicial Officer may get the Newspaper / Magazine as per his entitlement through his local hawker upon payment in the first instance, and the Officer could claim reimbursement from the office after producing the original bill.
* * * * *
CITY COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCE (CCA)
19.22 The Commission has circulated the following question seeking opinion on payment of CCA:
Q.28 : What is the principle upon which the City Compensatory Allowance is paid? Is there any need to change the basis of classification of Cities and the rates of city compensatory allowance. The allowance being given as compensation of certain cities' problems, should it not be uniform for all officers working in such cities?
19.23 The following is the summary of the replies received from the respondents :
i) Most of the High Courts / State Govts. / Service Associations are in favour of a uniform rate of CCA for a particular city.
ii) They want CCA on par with Central Government Rules. Some of them have suggested to adopt the recommendations of V C.P.C.
iii) Some of the Associations have suggested the pattern of CCA to be adopted on percentage basis instead of the slab system.
iv) It is also suggested by the High Court of Bombay that CCA should be fixed on the basis of cost of living index of the City instead of population. The same view has been expressed by the Maharashtra State Judicial Service Association.
19.24 The rationale behind the grant of City Compensatory Allowance is that while the minimum wage and other salaries are decided on average cost of living index and the DA component compensates the erosion based on the similar average, there are certain cities where the cost of living is higher, for which separate allowance is provided. The present scheme adopted by various State Governments follows the pattern of Govt. of India.
19.25 We have perused the discussion / recommendation of the V C.P.C. Though the ideal situation for classification of cities would be to link the payment of CCA to the difference between all India and regional price indices, this does not appear to be feasible since the AICPI and regional price indices are not comparable as they are based on different weighing diagrams. In this situation, the population criteria has to be continued for the purpose of classification of cities.
OUR RECOMMENDATION :
19.26 Each State Government has adopted classification of Cities based on the population criteria best suited to their local conditions. The C.C.A. rates vary from State to State. Since C.C.A., is a compensatory allowance peculiar to some cities for special reasons indicated elsewhere, it is not appropriate to provide separate C.C.A. rates to Judicial Officers who are working in the same atmosphere as other Government servants. Therefore, we recommend C.C.A., at the same rates payable to respective State Government employees.
* * * * *
ROBE ALLOWANCE
19.27 Prescribed uniform for Judicial Officers has been made mandatory. The Judges cannot come to the Court with the dress of their own choice. They must wear the uniform prescribed by the High Court. It has got its own advantage. It may not add colour to the Judge, but it will certainly create an awe inspiring atmosphere in the Court. The uniform generally consists of black coat, white shirt, black gown, necktie / band and white or grey trousers. Now-a-days, this uniform is pretty costly. So, we have received requests from all sides for what is termed as 'Robe Allowance'.
19.28 The Commission invited the views in this regard from all concerned by circulating the following question:
Q.No.29 : Some Associations want payment of Robe Allowance to Judicial Officers. There are views to the contrary also. What is your considered opinion?
19.29 From the replies received from the Respondents, it will be seen that already in Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Union Territory of Delhi, Robe Allowance is provided to Judicial Officers. The details are furnished as under:
a)
Delhi
An initial payment of Rs.5550/- and maintenance of Rs.300/- per month.
b)
Himachal Pradesh
An initial amount of not exceeding Rs.1150/- towards cost of one black coat length, one black zodiac neck-tie and also the stitching charge is paid to all Judicial Officers. In addition, the District / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judges are being supplied with black silk gowns.
c)
Orissa
Once in every two years, robe allowance at the rate of Rs.1200/- upto the rank of Chief Judicial Magistrate is being provided.
d)
Tripura
Rs.200/- per month is being paid as outfit allowance.
e)
Uttar Pradesh
Rs.300/- per month is being provided as robe allowance to all Judicial officers.
f)
West Bengal
Rs.500/- for every alternative year as robe allowance is being given to Judicial Officers.
19.30 The High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Punjab & Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim and Tamil Nadu have suggested payment of robe allowance. Some of the High Courts have even quantified the amount, both initial payment and maintenance allowance.
19.31 But the High Courts of Gujarat, Karnataka, Bombay and Calcutta are against granting robe allowance to Judicial Officers.
19.32 The High Courts of Kerala and Gauhati have not expressed any opinion.
19.33 The Governments of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tripura and Lakshadweep Administration have favoured payment of robe allowance. But the Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Sikkim are against providing such allowance.
19.34 When we turn to Service Associations, they are uniformly vociferous. They say, they cannot afford to meet the high cost of the uniform and the prohibitive cost of stitching.
19.35 The opinion of the former Judges is divided in this respect. Mr. Justice Ranganatha Misra, former CJI and Mr. Justice R.K. Mahajan (Rtd. Judge, Allahabad High Court) are for giving robe allowance. But Mr. Justice Sarkaria (former Judge, Supreme Court), Mr. Justice P.P. Bopanna (Rtd. Judge, Karnataka High Court) are against granting any robe allowance to Judicial Officers. Mr. B.S. Sekhon, former Law Secretary, Government of India is also against it.
19.36 It may be interesting to note the reasons given by certain High Courts for denying Robe Allowance to Judicial Officers.
19.37 The High Court of Gujarat has stated that the cost of clothes and stitching charges are increasing day by day. But the same has to be suffered by all citizens of the country and not by Judicial Officers alone. Normally Robe Allowance is granted to Class-IV employees and the demand for Robe Allowance can hardly be justified.
19.38 The High Court of Karnataka is of the opinion that it would not be befitting for the Judicial Officers to either claim or receive robe allowance.
19.39 The Bombay High Court has observed that in view of status and revised pay scales of Judicial Officers, it is not necessary to grant Robe Allowance.
19.40 The High Court of Calcutta, is against payment of any amount as Robe Allowance, regard being had to the dignity and prestige of the Judicial officers, though presently, they are paid Rs.500/- once in two years.
19.41 IN DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION (REGD.) & ANOTHER vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS1 the High Court of Delhi has considered the claim of the Delhi Judicial Officers for Robe Allowance and has ordered initially a lumpsum amount of Rs.5500/- and to pay every month a sum of Rs.300/- as dress allowance, by observing thus :
1. 1993 (3) SLR 583.
"It is undeniable that petitioners in the performance of their duties as judicial officers have to wear the dress as prescribed by High Court. There cannot be two opinions on that. This aspect it appears has not been properly appreciated by the Central Government and its argument that it could not be said that the petitioners would be able to discharge their duties more efficiently if they were supplied uniform by the Government or they were paid allowance for the same would appear to be rather irrelevant and devoid of reason.
"The Officers of the Delhi Judicial Service have to be provided with uniform and allowances for the maintenance of the same. It is obligatory for them to wear the dress as prescribed by Rules and Orders of this Court. We have not been able to find out as to what amount towards cost of dress and maintenance is paid to judicial officers by other States. It is not clear to us as to on what basis the State of Bihar is paying Rs.75/- per month as "gown allowance". We also do not know since when this amount is being paid. This gives us no guidance. As far as State of U.P. is concerned when the cost of books and clothes is spiraling the allowance of Rs.300/- p.m. paid to judicial officers there cannot have any bearing for the officers in Delhi where the cost of living is undeniably on the higher side. We can take judicial notice of the fact that the costs of law books or for that matter any books are so high that for a sum of Rs.300/- one cannot buy even a single good law book. We have also examined the recommendations of the Pay Commissions, particularly the Fourth one which have been reproduced above. These recommendations are of the year 1986. We cannot, however, compare the uniform for the Armed Forces with that prescribed for the judicial officers in the discharge of their respective duties. Judicial Officers are expected to be properly dressed as per rules and we do not think any period be fixed for buying a new dress for them. They should themselves change the dress as and when the need arises.
"Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that all the judicial officers be given a monthly allowance which shall be towards maintenance of the dress and also be enough for them to purchase dress out of that and not that they should be provided further cost of dress every three or five years. The break up of cost of clothes and stitching charges as given in the affidavit of Mr. S.K. Tandon and as mentioned above have not been disputed before us as no affidavit in reply thereto has been filed. We are of the opinion that all judicial officers who have been appointed to the service should be paid initially a lumpsum amount of Rs.5500/- and then they should be paid every month a sum of Rs.300/- as dress allowance for the purpose aforementioned."
19.42 IN STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS vs. RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER2, the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of High Courts making orders regarding the grant of Robe Allowance. The case before the Supreme Court arose in this way :
19.43 Originally, as per the State Government Notification dated 18.9.1992, Judicial Officers of Rajasthan were paid Dress Allowance of Rs.1500/- once in every three years with effect from 1.1.1992. Not being satisfied with that allowance, Judicial Officers moved the High Court in a Writ Petition claiming higher Dress Allowance. The Rajasthan High Court directed the State to pay to all Judicial Officers a lumpsum of Rs.8500/- towards Dress Allowance and thereafter pay Rs.300/- per month towards the maintenance of the dress. The High
2. Civil Appeal No.54 of 1997 disposed of on 24 May 1999.
Court also directed the State to consider revision of this allowance every four years, looking to the escalation in prices. Challenging the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, the State preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.54 of 1997.
19.44 The Supreme Court, after considering the matter and other relevant decisions on the question, observed :
"Whether a separate allowance for dress should or should not be granted also depends upon the total pay packet of the officer, his rank and status in society and whether in the context of his overall emoluments, it is necessary to give him a separate allowance. Employees in Class IV are normally given these allowances because their pay packets are perceived as at the lowest levels. One cannot ipso facto assume that the same logic will apply to Judicial Officers until we have an overall examination of their service conditions and a report from the National Judicial Pay Commission. In the judgments which were cited, this Court felt compelled to intervene only to ensure that proper functioning of the Judicial Officers was not affected. Unless the concerned service condition can be perceived as seriously affecting proper discharge of judicial duties, the High Court should not issue a mandamus directing the State to pay certain amounts to the Judicial Officers. [Underlining is ours]
xx xx xx
xx xx xx
"In the present case, looking to the parameters laid down by the Constitution and all the above decisions, the quantum of dress allowance or kit maintenance allowance was not required to be determined by the High Court in the manner in which it has done. "The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is, however, pointed out by the appellants that in November 1998, the State Government has decided to increase the uniform allowance from the existing rate of Rs.1500/- to Rs.3000/- in a block of three years. Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan has also stated before us that the State will pay the increased allowance as specified in its letter of 20-11-1998 addressed to the Advocate-on-Record by the Principal Secretary to the Government and issued by the Finance Department. The appellants are directed to pay the uniform allowance of Rs.3000/- in a block of three years accordingly.
"The appeal is allowed with the above direction. There will, however, be no order as to costs."
19.45 It is, therefore, now necessary for us to consider the matter regarding the Robe Allowance in all aspects; First, we may examine whether it is necessary to grant robe allowance to judicial officers; second; if so, how much it has to be allowed?
19.46 As we have made it clear in our Question No.29. there are two views on the question of granting robe allowance. Those who are against the proposal are of opinion that the judicial officers hold high and respectable posts and they should not demand dress allowance as Class IV servants. Nor they could be compared to the Military or Police personnel. It is also stated that the increasing cost of cloth and stitching should be borne by them like the general public.
19.47 The other view is that it has become quite expensive and hard to bear the cost of the prescribed dress and since it is compulsory it is necessary that they should be provided for.
OUR RECOMMENDATION :
19.48 We have carefully considered the rival contentions. We have also seen some of the judicial officers with torn coat and wornout neck-tie, particularly at the lowest cadre. It is a pity to see them with such shabby dress. In one Bar Association, which I have visited, I was informed by the judicial officer who is known for his honesty and integrity, that he cannot afford to buy decent dress to his wife and children and how he would be justified to make such purchase for himself.
19.49 That apart, "dress is an index of man's character". The clean and decent dress is also a part of the disciplined life. It also gives satisfaction. The judicial officers cannot afford to be shabbily dressed whether on the dais or off the dais. Particularly, he is a centre of gravity in the Court room, if not a centre of attraction. It is, therefore, necessary that he should be decently dressed.
19.50 Some High Courts have made rules that Judicial Officers whenever they want to see the Judges of the High Court must come with full suit. This order is made compulsory even in summer with exorbitant heat.
19.51 We are, however, concerned only with uniform for Court work.
19.52 The dress has become pretty costly. In fact, our Officers of the Commission have physically visited certain standard retail shops at Bangalore and collected necessary data relating to the retail price of clothing. The details are furnished below:
RAYMONDS
1.
COAT
Cloth 2 metres @ Rs.436/- per metre
Rs. 872-00
Stitching charges
Rs.1600-00
2.
TROUSERS
Cloth 1.2 metres @ Rs.436/- per metre
Rs. 523-00
Stitching charges
Rs. 180-00
3.
SHIRT
Cloth 2.5 metres @ Rs. 232/- per metre
Rs. 580-00
Stitching charges
Rs. 80-00
4.
ORDINARY GOWN
Rs. 800-00
TOTAL :
Rs. 4,635-00
GWALIOR
1.
COAT @ Rs. 474/-
Rs. 948-00
Stitching Charges
Rs. 1,600-00
2.
TROUSERS @ Rs. 474/-
Rs. 569-00
Stitching Charges
Rs. 180-00
3.
SHIRT @ Rs. 115/-
Rs. 288-00
Stitching Charges
Rs. 80-00
4.
ORDINARY GOWN
Rs. 800-00
TOTAL :
Rs. 4,465-00
19.53 It may be mentioned that the stitching charges vary from city to city markedly. However, the normal rate for stitching has been incorporated in the cost-structure. Keeping in view the above, we recommend that a lumpsum amount of Rs. 5,000/- should be paid to every Judicial Officer, once in five years as robe Allowance.
19.54 We are however, not in favour of recommending what may be termed as 'dress maintenance allowance' or 'kit maintenance allowance'. It is expected that those who wear the uniform are required to maintain it properly and neatly.
* * * * *
CONVEYANCE
19.55 The Apex Court in the ALL INDIA JUDGES CASE1 has, inter alia, observed:
"We shall now deal with the claim for transport. In most of the States the District Judge has been provided a motor car and in some of the States the Chief Judicial Magistrate is also provided with such transport, be it a car or jeep. There are still some States like Rajasthan, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh where provision of a car for every district judge has not yet been made. We direct that every District Judge should be provided with a car by March 31, 1992, and it shall be the obligation of the other States where such facility has not been provided to ensure the same within the time limit.
"The chief judicial magistrate is a touring officer apart from doing trial work as a magistrate. Mandate of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires him to undertake some touring. The quality of criminal justice administration would very much depend upon the mobility of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. We, therefore, direct that in such States and Union Territories where provision of independent transport for the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not been made, the same should be done by September, 30, 1992. We are further of the view that in stations with more than four judicial officers a common transport should be provided for the purpose of taking them from the residence to the Court and back and meeting their other official purposes and such vehicle should be placed under the control of the seniormost officer in the pool. The arrangement should be that for every five officers, there should be a vehicle. Provision for this aspect should be made by March 31, 1993. This direction has become necessary as judicial officers should not be forced to travel along with litigants and lawyers. In many sensitive cases, records are carried by them. In some disturbed areas,
________________________________________________________________
1. (1992) 1 SCC 119.
instances of harassment to judicial officers taking advantage of their using common transport have come to light. We direct that every State and Union Territory would file a compliance report in the Registry of this Court in respect of these three aspects within one month from the expiry of the outer limit indicated for each of them.
"There are several outlying Courts where the number of officers would not be more than five. We do not intend to provide any independent transport for them but such officers who ask for loan for purchase of a two wheeler automobile should immediately be provided the same. Appropriate funds should be made available for such purpose. A pool car should have 60 litres of petrol per month and a judicial officer owning a scooter would be entitled to an allowance of Rs.200 per month."
19.56 In the Review Judgment2, the Apex Court modified the aforesaid directions as under:
"It is the principal District Judge at each headquarters or metropolitan towns as the case may be, who will be entitled to an independent vehicle. This will equally apply to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The rest of the Judges and Magistrates will be entitled to pool-vehicles one for every five judges for transport from residence to Court and back - and when needed, to loans for two wheeler automobiles and conveyance allowance. The State Govts / UTs are directed to provide adequate quantity of free petrol for the vehicles not exceeding 100 litres per month in consultation with the High Court".
________________________________________________________________
2. (1993) 4 Sec 288.
19.57 The Commission on a preliminary discussion has received several grievances from the judicial officers and the High Courts. Hence, the Commission formulated the following questions seeking views from the concerned :
Q.No.30 : The Supreme Court has observed that barring District Judges / Chief Judicial Magistrates / Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, the rest of the Judges should be provided with pool vehicles - one vehicle for five Officers. Has this been implemented in your State / UT? Is there any problem or inconvenience in this method of transportation? Opinions and suggestions on this matter are welcome.
Q.No.31 : If a Judicial Officer owns a car, how much petrol allowance may be provided for the use of his car for office purposes?
19.58 Replies received from the High Courts, Service Associations and state Governments are to the following effect :
19.59 All the High Courts have reported that the direction of the Apex Court with regard to provision for conveyance to District Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates including common / pool vehicle has been complied with / implemented. But some have pointed out the following practical difficulties with regard to pool vehicle :
1) The court buildings and residences of the judicial officers are scattered over the length and breadth of the city. For example, in Delhi and Lucknow, Courts are situated at different and distant places and provision of 100 litres petrol per month is inadequate and thus causes practical difficulty in use of pool vehicles.
2) There is enormous wastage of time in collecting and carrying five judges in a trip of the vehicle from residences to the Court houses and back. If a vehicle is to make more than one trip, then some officers have to come too early to the office while others reach late. Similarly, for the return journey in the evening, if an officer is held up in a case for recording of evidence or hearing of lengthy arguments - to accommodate either witnesses or lawyers coming from outstations - then that officer has either to leave the court work incomplete or to make some alternate arrangement because, most of the vehicles start at fixed times without waiting for all of them. Thus, the present arrangement of fixed timings for groups of officers causes not only personal inconvenience but also adversely affects the overall efficiency of courts / judges. In other words, by the use of pool vehicles, no uniformity and punctuality can be maintained amongst the Judicial Officers. Further, some judicial officers work in the chambers even before and after court hours and others finish their work within court hours. If any one is held up (out of five) due to any reason, the other four judicial officers are detained against their will and for no work or the odd judicial officer is left in the court campus without any vehicle to go back to his residence.
3) The pool vehicle system is not convenient to lady Judicial Officers.
4) Pool vehicle system is uneconomical from the angle of the cost of maintenance. It is reported that the approximate monthly expenditure of a vehicle is Rs.15000/- i.e. an approximate expenditure of Rs.3000/-p.m. per officer.
5) Pool vehicle is to carry Judicial Officers from residence to court and back to the residence only. It cannot be used for any emergency like illness of Judicial Officers.
6) The pool car is used not as taxi, but as a black board registered vehicle, it cannot carry more than 4 + 1 persons. It would be contrary to the provisions of law to carry 5 + 1 persons in such cars.
19.60 It is also stated that there is delay in allotting the funds for petrol and maintenance of vehicles by the Government and the vehicles have to remain idle.
19.61 Some High Courts and all the Service Associations prefer soft loans at nominal interest of 6% with appropriate petrol allowance instead of pool vehicle.
19.62 To those who own cars, the High Courts have suggested 75 to 100 litres of petrol per month.
19.63 However, the High Court of Orissa has suggested petrol allowance equivalent of the price of 40 litres of petrol, while High Court of Patna has favoured petrol allowance equivalent of the price of 60 litres.
19.64 All the Service Associations have requested 50 litres to 150 litres of petrol per month for those who own their own cars.
19.65 We have received large number of requests from the First Additional District Judges/First Additional Principal City Civil Court Judges, and Chief Judges, Small Causes Courts that they have got heavy duties and responsibilities and that they have to take over the responsibility of the Principal District Judge whenever the latter is on leave. It appears that the car provided to the Principal District Judge is not made available to them. They have, therefore, requested for independent vehicle.
19.66 First Additional District Judge/First Additional Principal City Civil Court Judges are generally very senior District Judges. We are of opinion that their requests appear to be reasonable.
19.67 There is a large scale complaint that the existing system of providing a pool car for five Officers not only is inconvenient but also contrary to the Motor Vehicle Rules existing in some States. It is also complained that if there is a lady Judicial Officer, it would be difficult for the five Officers to get themselves squeezed into the car. This problem will be more if there is a security guard provided to one of those officers since the Security Guard has to accompany the officer always.
19.68 The Commission has also noticed the recommendations of the 5th C.P.C. with regard to Transport Allowance to Central Government employees.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS:
19.69 Taking these factors into consideration, we recommend as follows:
1. (a) The existing system of providing independent vehicles to every Principal District Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate / Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as directed by the Supreme Court must continue.
(b) Needless to state that the Principal Judge of City Civil Court in every city where City Civil Court has been constituted should be provided an independent vehicle.
(c) The Chief Judges of Small Causes Courts, who are in the cadre of District Judges, should be provided with independent vehicles.
(d) The First Additional District Judge and First Additional/Principal City Civil Court Judge should also be provided with an independent vehicle.
2. Instead of one pool car for five Officers, it should be one pool car for a maximum of four Officers. That does not mean that there shall be no pool car if there is any station with less than 4 Officers. Indeed, if there are less than 4 Officers, it is but necessary to provide them also a pool car.
3. If there is a lady Judicial Officer to be ferried in the pool car, she should be provided the front seat of the car.
4. Since there is a complaint that 100 litres of petrol for pool car is found to be generally inadequate, we recommend 150 litres in Metropolitan cities and outside thereof 125 litres per month.
5. We further recommend that the Judicial Officers may be allowed to utilise the pool car for their personal requirements when it is not on duty for Court purposes, at a rate of Rs.3.50 per K.M. This shall be properly arranged and supervised by the Principal District Judge or Chief Administrative Officer.
1.The Judicial Officer who owns Car be given the following litres of petrol / diesel or equivalent price thereof in the type of city or location as mentioned hereinbelow:
Type of City / Location
Ceiling limit of petrol /diesel (in Litres)
'A' and 'A-1'
75
District Centre
50
The classification of cities on the basis of population criteria adopted by the respective States best suited to their local conditions referred to in the case of CCA be adopted for the purpose of conveyance allowance.
7. The Judicial Officer who owns Scooter be given 25 litres of petrol or equivalent price thereof.
8. The Judicial Officer who owns Car may be given the option to avail of the pool vehicle facility or petrol / diesel as aforesaid.
9. The Judicial Officers may be given liberal soft loans with nominal interest as Motor Car Advance upto a ceiling of Rs.2.5 lakhs with convenient instalments for repayment.
10. As the number of Officers availing the pool vehicle facility decreases the excess number of poor vehicles shall be surrendered to High Court / State Government.
11. The cadre of car drivers should be frozen and surplus drivers, if any, should be redeployed elsewhere and surplus vehicles should also be disposed of.
* * * * *
15.24 We have particularly borne in mind the pivotal role of Subordinate Judiciary, essential characteristics of judicial office, special qualifications required for recruitment, onerous duties and responsibilities of the post and personal sacrifice in terms of loneliness and general withdrawal from the community affairs made by Judicial Officers. We have taken into consideration the pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC and of those that have been accepted by the Central and State Governments and all other relevant principles which have bearing on the matter for determining the uniform pay structure to the three cadres in Judicial Service.
15.25 Before evolving the uniform pay scales, it is necessary to study the existing pay scales of different cadres in different States and Union Territories. They are set out hereunder:
Details of Existing Cadres and Pay Scales in different States / UTs.
State / UT
Cadre
Existing Pay Scale (Rs.)
1.
Andhra Pradesh
Junior Civil Judge
3880-130-4400-160-5200-190-6150-230-7300-280-8140
Special Grade
(after 8 years)
4140-130-4400-160-5200-190-6150-230-7300-280-8140
Special Promotion
(after 16 years)
5040-160-5200-190-6150-230-7300-280-8700
Senior Civil Judge
5040-160-5200-190-6150-230-7300-280-8700
District & Sessions Judge-Gr.II / CJM
7070-230-7300-280-10100
District & Sessions Judge-Gr.I
8140-280-10380
2.
Assam
Munsiff / Judicial Magistrate/ Sub-Divl.Judicial Magistrate
1835-50-2035-60-2395-80-2555- EB-80-2875-100-3575-125-4325
Asst. Dist. & Sessions Judge/ Chief Judicial Magistrate
3375-100-3575-125-4325-EB-125-4450-150-5200
Special Judge
3825-125-4450-150-5200-175-5900
District & Sessions Judge
3825-125-4450-150-5200-175-5900
Selection Grade :
3950-125-4450-150-5200-175-5900-200-6100
3.
Bihar
Munsiff / JMFC / JMSC
2425-75-2800-100-4000
After 10 years :
3000-100-3500-125-4500
CJM / Subordinate Judge / Sub-Divl.Judicial Magistrate
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Second level :
3700-125-4700-150-5000
Third level :
4500-150-5700
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
3700-125-4700-150-5000
Selection Grade :
4500-150-5700
Super Time Scale :
5900-200-6700
4.
Goa
Civil Judge (Jr. Branch)
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Civil Judge (Sr. Branch)
3200-100-3500-125-4625
District & Sessions Judge
4500-150-5700
5.
Gujarat
Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) / JMFC
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000(Pre-Revised)
8000-275-14050 (Revised)
Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) / CJM / Assistant Judge / Judge, SCC
3000-100-3500-125-4500
3000-100-3500-125-5000
(Pre-Revised)
10000-325-15200 (Revised)
District Judge
4100-125-5100-150-5700(Pre-Revised)
14300-400-18300 (Revised)
Judge, City Civil Court
5700 (Fixed) - (Pre-Revised)
18300 (Fixed) - (Revised)
Principal Judge
5900-200-6700 (Pre-Revised)
18400-500-22400 (Revised)
6.
Haryana
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) / CJM / Judge (SCC) / Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)- cum-JM I & II Class
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Senior Time Scale :
(after 5 years)
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Selection Grade :
(after 12 years)
4100-125-4850-150-5300
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge
3200-100-3700-125-4700-150-5600
Selection Grade :
5900-200-6700
7.
Himachal Pradesh
Sr. Sub-Judge-cum-CJM / Sub-Judge-cum-JMFC / CJM
2200-50-2400-60-2700-75-3000-100-4000
Sr. Scale (after 8 years)
3000-100-4000-125-4500
Seln.Grade (after 12 yrs.)
4125-125-5000-150-5600
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
3000-100-4000-125-5000-150-5600
Seln.Grade (after 8 yrs.)
5000-100-5900-200-6700
8.
Jammu & Kashmir
Munsiff / Judicial Magistrate
2200-75-2800-EB-100-3800
Sub-Judge / CJM
3000-100-3500-125-4500
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
3700-125-4700-150-5000
District & Sessions Judge (Selection Grade)
4500-150-6700
District & Sessions Judge
(Super Time Scale)
5100-150-6300
9.
Karnataka
Civil Judge (Junior Divn.)
2375-75-2900-100-3700-125-4450
Civil Judge (Senior Divn.)
3825-125-4700-150-5300-175-5825
District Judge
4700-150-5300-175-6000-200-6400
Super Time Scale
5825-175-6000-200-6800
10.
Kerala
Munsiff / Magistrate
2500-75-2800-100-4000
Sub-Judge / CJM
3900-125-4775-150-5075
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
5100-150-5700
Dist. Judge (Seln. Grade)
5900-150-6500-200-6700
11.
Madhya Pradesh
Civil Judges - Junior Scale
2200-75-2800-100-4000
Civil Judges - Senior Scale
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Civil Judge - SG-cum-CJM
3700-125-4700-150-5000
District Judge
(Senior Time Scale)
3200-100-3700-125-4700
District Judge in Junior Adm. Grade
3950-125-4700-150-5000
District Judge (Selection Grade)
4800-150-5700
District Judge (Senior Time Scale)
5900-200-6700
District Judge (Above STS)
7300-100-7600
12.
Maharashtra
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) / JMFC
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) / CJM
3200-100-3500-125-4625
Addl. Dist. Judge / Judge, SCC / Addl.Chief Judge, SCC
3700-125-4700-150-5000
Dist. Judge/Chief Judge, SCC
4500-150-5700
Dist.Judge (Selection Grade)
5900-200-6700
Judge, City Civil Court
5400-150-6300-200-6500
Principal Judge, CCC / Addl. Principal Judge CCC
5900-200-6700
13.
Manipur
Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) / JMFC / JMSC
2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) / CJM
3000-100-3500-125-4500
District & Sessions Judge
3700-125-4700-150-5000
14.
Meghalaya
Munsiff / Judicial Magistrate
2000-100-2500-EB-110-3050-120-3650-EB-125-4150
Asst. District & Sessions Judge / CJM
3500-125-4000-EB-135-4540-140-5100
District & Sessions Judge
3900-150-4650-EB-160-5450
15.
Mizoram
Munsiff / Judicial Magistrate
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.)/JMFC
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) / CJM
3700-125-4700-150-5000
Special Judge
4500-150-5700
District & Sessions Judge
5100-150-6300-200-6700
16.
Nagaland
Judicial Magistrate II Class & Sub-Judge
2100-60-2760-70-3600-80-4000
JMFC & Sub-Judge / CJM
2900-100-3900-125-4900
Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
3500-125-4250-140-5650
District & Sessions Judge
4500-150-5850-175-6200
17.
Orissa
Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) & Judicial Magistrate
2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500
Sub-Divl. Judicial Magistrate
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
2800-100-3600-EB-125-4350
Chief Judicial Magistrate
3000-100-3500-125-4500
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge
3200-100-3700-125-4700
Selection Grade
4800-150-5700
Super Time Scale
5900-200-6700
18.
Punjab
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)/CJM / Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum- JM I & II Class
2200-70-2550-75-3000-100-4000
Sr. Scale (after 8 years)
3000-100-4000-125-4500
Seln. Gr. (after 18 yrs.)
4125-125-5000-150-5600
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge
3000-100-4000-125-5000-150-5600
Seln. Gr. (after 8 yrs.)
5000-150-5900-200-6700
19.
Rajasthan
Munsiff & JMFC
2200-75-2800-100-4000
Civil Judge-cum-JMFC
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Sr. Civil Judge-cum-JMFC
3700-125-4700-150-5000
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)-cum-CJM
4500-150-5700
District Judge / Addl. DJ
5100-150-5700-200-6300
Selection Grade :
5900-200-6700
20.
Sikkim
Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate
1820-60-2600-EB-75-3200
Sr. Scale (after 5 years)
2525-75-3200-100-4000
Seln. Gr. (after 10 yrs.)
3450-125-4700
Chief Judicial Magistrate
3450-125-4700
District & Sessions Judge
3200-100-3700-125-4700
21.
Tamil Nadu
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) / JMFC
2500-75-2800-100-4200
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
3700-125-4700-150-5000
District Judge / Additional District Judge / CJM
4500-150-5700
District Judge (STS)
5100-150-5700
22.
Tripura
Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) / Judicial Magistrate
2100-75-2250-80-2490-85-3000-90-3720-95-4100-100-5000
Selection Time Scale (after 4 yrs.)
3000-90-3720-95-4100-100-5000
Civil Judge (Senior Divn.)
3600-130-4900-150-5800
Dist. & Sessions Judge / CJM
4000-140-4700-150-5900
Selection Grade :
5900-200-6700
23.
Uttar Pradesh
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) / JMFC
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
After 5 years :
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) / CJM
3000-100-3500-125-4500
Seln. Gr. (20% of posts)
3700-125-4700-150-5000
District & Sessions Judge / Additional D & S Judge
5100-150-6300
Super Time Scale
5900-200-6700
Selection Grade
5900-200-6700
24.
West Bengal
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) / JMFC
2200-80-3000-100-4000
After 6 years :
3000-100-3500-125-4750
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) / SDJM
3000-100-3500-125-4750
After 13 years
3700-125-4950-150-5700
Dist. & Sessions Judge / CMM
3200-100-3700-125-4700 (Pre-revised)
10650-325-15850 (Revised)
After 5 years :
3950-125-4700-150-5000 (Pre-revised)
12750-375-16500 (Revised)
S G (After 9 years) :
4800-150-5700 (Pre-revised)
15100-400-18300 (Revised)
Super Time Scale
5900-200-6700 (Pre-revised)
18400-500-22400 (Revised)
Above Supertime Scale:
7300-100-7600 (Pre-revised)
22400-525-24500 (Revised)
25.
Delhi
Civil Judge / Sr. Civil Judge
2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000 (Pre-revised)
8000-275-13500 (Revised)
Sr. Time Scale (after 5 yrs.)
3000-100-3500-125-4500 (Pre-revised)
10000-325-15200 (Revised)
S G (after 8 years) :
3700-125-4700-150-5000 (Pre-revised)
12000-375-16500 (Revised)
Dist. & Sessions Judge / CMM
5100-150-5700-200-6300 (Pre-revised)
16400-450-20000 (Revised)
Selection Grade
5900-200-6700 (Pre-revised)
18400-500-22400 (Revised)
Super Time Scale :
5900-200-6700 (Pre-revised)
18400-500-22400 (Revised)
26.
Pondicherry
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) / JMFC
2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500
(Pre-revised)
6500-200-10500 (Revised)
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) / CJM
3000-100-3500-125-4500 (Pre-revised)
10000-325-15200 (Revised)
Dist. Judge / Sessions Judge
3000-100-3500-125-5000 (Pre-revised)
10000-325-15200 (Revised)
27.
Lakshadweep
Munsiff-cum-JMFC
2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500
District Judge
4500-150-5700
Note : Since then some of the State Governments have revised their pay scales. However the same information has not been furnished by the High Courts / State Governments.
15.26 It will be seen that there is a wide variance in the pay structures prevailing in the various States and Union Territories. The Judicial Officers performing the same or similar nature of work are remunerated differently. We have to remove this incongruity by evolving a uniform/common pay scale, cadre-wise, to Judicial Officers in every State and Union Territory.
15.27 While evolving a pay scale to any cadre of service, it is necessary to bear in mind the length of the time scale, the period and the rate of increment, the ratio, if any, between the minimum and maximum or such other parameter of the pay scale and the desirability of introducing an 'Efficiency Bar'.
15.28 Instead of fixed pay scales, we have opted for the telescopic scales to Judicial Officers. The telescopic pay scales are preferable for the reason that experience in a lower cadre itself is a qualification for promotion to the higher cadre. This principle is also implicit in the recruitment rules of any cadre. Promotion, however, is not always definite or certain. It depends upon the various circumstances such as strength of cadre and the relative age group of persons in the cadre. There must, therefore, be a mechanism to provide a pay scale to the person in the lower cadre, which may correspond at least to the lower reaches of the scale prescribed for promotional cadre. This is in conformity with the principle that an Officer in the lower cadre is generally entrusted with more responsible work after some years of experience, and that responsibility may be near or more than that of the higher post. In such situation, the Officer should be suitably rewarded for such responsible work.
15.29 These aspects could be worked out only when we prepare a Master Pay Scale before determining the different pay scales. Hence, we have, at the first instance, gone for the Master Pay Scale.
15.30 The advantages of the Master Pay Scale are manifold. Some of them may be stated as under :
(i) The pay scale would be telescopic in nature;
(ii) In the hierarchy of cadres of posts, the bottom of the lowest of any level of the pay scale admissible to any cadre, would dip into a part of the range of the immediately next below scale. (This kind of pay scale is intended to reward the experienced Officers in the lower cadre languishing without promotion.);
(iii) It has convenient inbuilt incremental structure which would be the basis for working out the other pay scales;
(iv) The Officers who have reached a particular stage of pay would get the same increment, irrespective of the pay scale attached to their posts;
(v) The different segments of the Master Pay Scale could be formed into different pay scales according to the requirements.
15.31 The Master Pay Scale evolved by the Commission is as follows:
Rs. 9000-250-10750-300-13150-350-15950-400-19150-450-21850- 500-24850.
15.32 The Master Pay Scale has got a total span of 44 stages, the details of which are set out below:
Pay stages
1.
9000
23.
15600
2.
9250
24.
15950
3.
9500
25.
16350
4.
9750
26.
16750
5.
10000
27.
17150
6.
10250
28.
17550
7.
10500
29.
17950
8.
10750
30.
18350
9.
11050
31.
18750
10.
11350
32.
19150
11.
11650
33.
19600
12.
11950
34.
20050
13.
12250
35.
20500
14.
22550
36.
20950
15.
12850
37.
21400
16.
13150
38.
21850
17.
13500
39.
22350
18.
13850
40.
22850
19.
14200
41.
23350
20.
14550
42.
23850
21.
14900
43.
34350
22.
15250
44.
24850
NUMBER OF SCALES IN MASTER PAY SCALE :
15.33 Broadly speaking, the number of pay scales should be equal to the number of clearly identifiable levels of responsibilities. The identifiable levels in our Judicial Service are three, viz., (i) Civil Judge (Junior Division); (ii) Civil Judge (Senior Division); and (iii) District Judge.
15.34 Primarily, we have to therefore evolve three pay scales. But, since we have decided to give Assured Career Progression Scales to the first two cadres and Selection Grade Pay Scale and Super Time Pay Scale to the third cadre, we have to prepare 7 (seven) pay scales in all.
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY SCALES :
15.35 While fixing the minimum of the Master Pay Scale, we have looked into the pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC to the All India Service Officers at the entry level. We have also considered the qualification perscribed for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division); consequently, their late entry into the service.
15.36 Taking all these and other relevant factors, we have fixed Rs.9,000/- as the Minimum of the Master Pay Scale.
15.37 As to the maximum in the Master Pay Scale, we have to bear in mind that in no circumstances, the District Judge shall get more than the pay of the High Court Judge. That is the vertical cap. Taking this aspect into consideration, we have fixed a maximum of Rs.24,850/- in the Master Pay Scale.
15.38 Accordingly, the following three primary Pay Scales have been determined, cadre-wise :
CIVIL JUDGES (JR. DIVN.) : Rs.9000-250-10750-300-13150- 350-14550
CIVIL JUDGES (SR. DIVN.) : Rs.12850-300-13150-350-15950- 400-17550
DISTRICT JUDGES : Entry Level - Rs.16750-400-19150- 450-20500
15.39 We have also determined the Assured Career Progression Scheme for Civil Judges (Jr. Divn.) and Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) as follows :
CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :
I Stage : Rs. 10750-300-13150-350-14900
II Stage : Rs. 12850-300-13150-350-15950-400-17550
CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :
I Stage : Rs. 14200-350-15950-400-18350
II Stage : Rs. 16750-400-19150-450-20500
15.40 It may be noted that the II Stage ACP for Civil Judge (Junior Division) is the Pay scale of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the II Stage ACP for the Civil Judge (Senior Division) is the entry level pay scale of the District Judge.
15.41 So far as the other pay scales to the District Judge are concerned, we have recommended Selection Grade Scale of Rs.18750-400-19150-450-21850-500-22850 and Super Time Scale of Rs.22850-500-24850.
15.42 We have not provided any 'Above Super Time Scale' to the District Judges, though such pay scales are provided presently in Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. Both the States have adopted IAS Pay Rules to the Higher Judicial Service in their States and consequently, the 'Above Super Time Scale' of Rs.22400-525-24500 has been provided to the senior-most District Judges who happen to be only a fortunate few.
15.43 But our recommended Selection Grade and Super Time Scale would benefit a large number of District Judges in all States and UTs. We have recommended 25% of the cadre posts of District Judges who have put in not less than five years of service in the cadre be given the said Selection Grade Scale and they shall be called Selection Grade District Judges. We have also recommended that 10% of the Selection Grade District Judges who have put in not less than three years of service as Selection Grade District Judges be allowed Super Time Scale of pay.
15.44 Both these scales would be given by selection on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.
15.45 It may be noted that our Selection Grade Scale is apparently superior to the existing Super Time Scale of the District Judges in the said two States. Besides, the opening point and the end point in our Super Time Scale are also relatively higher than those of their 'Above Super Time Scale'.
15.46 We have also taken care to protect the interests of such of those District Judges in those two States who are in the 'Above Super Time Scale' by appropriately giving them the benefit of fixation.
47.For better understanding, we have set out below a Table and Chart indicating the mean of basic pay of the proposed scale to each cadre of Judicial Officers with reference to the pay of the High Court Judges and the Supreme Court Judges :
TABLE
Category of Judges
Monthly Mean Pay (in Rs.)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
11,775
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
15,200
District Judge (Entry Level)
18,625
District Judge (Selection Grade)
20,800
District Judge (Super Time Scale)
23,850
Judge of the High Court
26,000 (Fixed)
Chief Justice of the High Court
30,000 (Fixed)
Judge of the Supreme Court
30,000 (Fixed)
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
33,000 (Fixed)
15.48 It may be seen from the aforesaid Table and Chart that the mean of the basic pay of Civil Judges (Junior Division), Civil Judges (Senior Division), District Judges (Entry Level), District Judges (Selection Grade) and District Judges (Super Time Scale) works out respectively at 42.3%, 58.5%, 71.6%, 80% and 91.7% of the salary of the High Court Judges.
15.49 In the same Chart, it may be seen that the mean of the basic pay of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) works out at 49.4% and 63.7% of the mean basic pay of the District Judges (Super Time Scale).
15.50 We further recommend that in case the salary of the High Court Judges is revised upward at any time, the pay scales of the Judicial Officers in all the aforesaid cadres, should also be suitably revised upward by maintaining the said respective ratios.
RATE OF INCREMENT :
15.51 We have examined the granting of increment as a percentage of basic pay, but we find that such a system is operationally inconvenient. We have, therefore, adopted the system of fixed-quantum increments while evolving the Master Pay Scale.
15.52 We may also say a few words as to why we have adopted a particular rate of increment or increments in the Master Pay Scale.
15.53 Increment is a periodical increase given to employees, mainly for three reasons :
i) It is a credit to the experience gained and for better quality and quantity of work;
ii) The domestic responsibilities of employees generally increase as they grow and the increment would meet such contingency;
iii) The annual increment itself serves as an incentive to employees for putting forward sustained effort in their work.
15.54 The rate of increment in any scale would depend on its minimum, maximum and the time span. Other considerations for fixing the rate of increments would be : (a) incremental rates in the existing pay structures, and (b) price escalation in recent years especially since 1986 when most of the State Governments revised the salary structure to their employees, which was also extended to the Judicial Officers.
15.55 It is common knowledge that short time-span would give rise to complaints of stagnation, while longer time-span results in very slow increases in the pay. To avoid these two extremes, we consider that six incremental rates would be proper and ideal.
EFFICIENCY BAR :
15.56 The system of Efficiency Bar was in vogue earlier. But such a system did not serve the purpose for which it was intended. It has been observed in the past that the majority of the officials are allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar as a matter of course with little or no effective consideration of the objectives of such assessment.
15.57 It is also complained that the assessment on efficiency of an officer is likely to be based on personal prejudices and predilections. It is also stated that the Efficiency Bar has been used as an instrument of oppression on an officer who does not toe the line of his superior.
15.58 Having considered all these aspects, we are of the view that the 'Efficiency Bar' should be dispensed with. Indeed, every Association of Judicial Officers and even some High Courts are not for the system of 'Efficiency Bar'.
15.59 The supervisory power of the High Court is so vast that it could be effectively utilised by other means to deal with the incompetent, dishonest, inefficient and negligent officers. Therefore, we have not provided any 'Efficiency Bar' in any scale.
PRINCIPLES OF FIXATION OF PAY IN THE PAY SCALES RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION
60.The Commission in its Report dated 31.01.1998 has allowed interim relief to Judicial Officers of different States/UTs in varying terms to bring about near parity in the emoluments drawn by them. The interim relief allowed was ranging from 35% to 75% as per the details given below :
Name of the State / UT
Percentage on Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance of each Judicial Officer as on 1st January 1996
1.
Andhra Pradesh
35%
2.
Assam
75%
3.
Bihar
35%
4.
Haryana
40%
5.
Himachal Pradesh
40%
6.
Jammu & Kashmir
40%
7.
Karnataka
35%
8.
Kerala
35%
9.
Maharashtra
40%
10.
Manipur
40%
11.
Meghalaya
40%
12.
Mizoram
40%
13.
Nagaland
40%
14.
Orissa
40%
15.
Punjab
40%
16.
Rajasthan
40%
17.
Sikkim
45%
18.
Tamil Nadu
35%
19.
Tripura
40%
20.
Uttar Pradesh
40%
21.
West Bengal
55% - To the Officers of the Subordinate Judicial Service only.
15.61 The Commission gave the interim relief to Judicial Officers in such of the States/UTs where the benefits of the pay scales recommended by 5th CPC were not extended, because, the then object of allowing interim relief was to raise the emoluments of the beneficiaries approximately to the level of the pay scales of the 5th CPC.
15.62 We have since evolved the new pay scales to different cadres, which are termed as "our revised pay scales".
15.63 It may at once be stated that our revised pay scales are indeed better than the existing pay scales at various levels in every State, and it is, therefore, necessary to fix the existing incumbents in our revised pay scales.
15.64 We may, in this context, refer to the method adopted by the earlier Pay Commissions, both at the Centre and States, for fixation of pay whenever the new pay scales are determined. They are generally of the following two types:
(i) giving a uniform percentage increase to all; and
(ii) giving varying percentage of basic pay or varying quantum increase depending upon the length of service put in.
15.65 In certain Public Sector Undertakings, the concept of point to point fixation is also in vogue.
15.66 The formula of giving varying quantum increases depending upon the length of service confers equal benefit to all employees within each of the 'service-length groups' and, therefore, leads to clubbing of pay stages thereby equalising the junior and senior which causes resentment in the latter.
15.67 The formula of the 'point to point fixation' implies that the pay of an Officer should be fixed in the revised scale at a stage which represents the same number of increments which he had earned in the pre-revised scale. It may in effect amount to counting the entire service rendered by him in the pre-revised scale as having been rendered in the revised scale. The application of this formula of point to point fixation would lead to an anomalous situation to Officers drawing the same basic pay in different existing scales being fixed at different stages in the corresponding revised scales. This may defeat the very purpose of evolving a 'Master Pay Scale' which is based on the principle that all Officers at the same pay stage should get the same increment.
15.68 But giving a certain percentage of Basic Pay as an additionality to all Officers seems to be better as it spreads the advantage evenly among all the Officers. The procedure is also simple since the benefit is given on a percentage basis, and the service of an Officer reflected in the increments earned also gets a weightage. This formula inevitably gives weightage to the length of service of the Officer because the stage which he occupies in the existing scale reflects the length of his service. We would, therefore, like to adopt this formula.
15.69 Before we apply the said formula, it is necessary to determine the effective date on which the pay scales are to be given effect to.
EFFECTIVE DATE :
15.70 The Judicial Officers in UTs and in certain other States are already given the benefits of the pay scales of 5th CPC with effect from 1-1-1996.
15.71 Some Associations of Judicial Officers have stated that we should give the benefit of our revised pay scales with effect from the date of the original judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association Case. Some others are asking that it should be given at least from the date of the Review Judgment of the Supreme Court in that case. Likewise, the different Officers have made different demands.
15.72 The "effective date" should not be pick and choose. It should not be arbitrarily selected. It must have a nexus to the object of giving the revised pay scales. It should be uniform regard being had to the effective date on which some States have already implemented the pay scales of the 5th CPC. It should also be in conformity with such date applied to Civil Servants in general to avoid heart burning.
15.73 The Central Government servants and employees of certain State Governments have been given the benefit of the pay scales of 5th CPC with effect from 1-1-1996.
15.74 Our Commission was constituted on 21-3-1996. We commenced working only at the fag end of December 1996.
15.75 We have given Interim Relief to Judicial Officers with effect from 1-7-1996. The interim relief was confined to those Officers who are not given the benefit of pay scales recommended by 5th CPC.
15.76 We have structured our revised pay scales at 1510 AICPI level by merging the entire D.A. admissible as on 1-1-1996.
15.77 We have to, therefore, strike a balance amongst the aforesaid dates.
15.78 We consider that it is not proper to relate back the effective date to the date of judgment of the Supreme Court. Nor it is just to limit it to the date from which the interim relief has been given, though ordinarily it should be the date.
15.79 Since some of the States and the Union Territories have already given the Central pay scales to our Judicial Officers with effect from 1-1-1996, it would be necessary for us to determine the effective date for our revised pay scales as on 1-1-1996 notwithstanding the fact that the interim relief has been given with effect from 1-7-1996.
15.80 We, however, make it clear that only notional benefit would be worked out from 1-1-1996, without giving the actual financial benefit flowing therefrom. The actual monetary benefit shall be given only with effect from 1-7-1996.
15.81 We may also make it clear that the benefit of other allowances which we have recommended be given with effect from 1-11-1999, the date which we have fixed since we are presenting these Reports in November 1999.
15.82 Needless to state that the Interim Relief as such shall cease to be operative since it has been included while evolving the new pay structure.
15.83 This takes us to the methodology of the fitment formula.
15.84 As earlier indicated, we have preferred the method of giving certain percentage of Basic Pay as an additionality to all Officers. This should be so whether they are covered by the respective State Government scales or 5th CPC scales.
15.85 Taking all these factors into consideration, we are of opinion that another 10% of Basic Pay should be the basis for working out the fixation level in our revised scales. This should be in addition to the interim relief already granted by the Commission or the adoption of 5th CPC scales by some States/UTs with effect from 1-1-1996.
15.86 We are conscious of the fact that this method of fixation may not give uniform consequential benefits to Judicial Officers. It is inevitable. It is impossible to provide equal consequential benefits to each cadre with mathematical precision in view of the fact that the existing pay scales of Judicial Officers in every cadre vary from State to State. That is because of the implementation of the pay scales of the 5th CPC by some States/UTs, while giving effect to our interim relief on varying terms by other States.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS :
15.87 Taking all these factors into consideration, we recommend the following procedure for fixation of pay in our revised scales :
i) A Judicial Officer shall first be given a financial benefit of 10% over his basic pay as on 1-1-1996 in his existing pay scale.
ii) Then, compute the aggregate emoluments of the Officer as on 1-1-1996 in the following manner :
a) Basic pay in the existing scale as on 1-1-1996 plus 10% thereon.
b) Dearness Allowance admissible on the original Basic Pay on 1st January 1996 at AICPI level of 1510 (1960=100).
* c) Amounts of interim relief admissible (As recommended by this Commission).
iii) After the aforesaid calculations, the pay of the Officer in our revised scale shall be fixed as follows :
a) If the aggregate of the present emoluments as aforesaid computed is less than the minimum of the revised scale, then, it should be at the minimum of our revised scale;
* We have not given Interim Relief with effect from 1-1-1996. We have confined it only with effect from 1-7-1996. Since we propose to evolve the new pay structure with reference to 1-1-1996, it has become necessary to determine the aggregate emoluments inclusive of the interim relief. The interim relief is, therefore, taken into consideration notionally.
b) if the aggregate of the present emoluments so computed corresponds to a stage in our revised scale, at that stage of the revised scale;
c) if the aggregate of the present emoluments so computed is intermediate between two stages in the revised scale, then at the higher of the two stages; and
d) if the aggregate of the present emoluments so computed is more than the maximum of the revised scale, then at the maximum of the revised scale and the difference, if any, be treated as personal pay.
15.88 In fixing pay on the revised scale, following factors should also be taken into account :
a) In case, an Officer drawing pay in the pre-revised scale (existing scale), equal to or less than that of his senior/seniors in the same cadre and similarly appointed, draws his next increment in the revised scale on the date earlier than such senior/seniors whereby his pay is raised to a stage higher than that of such senior/seniors, the date of next increment of the senior/seniors shall be advanced to the date on which the junior officer draws his next increment;
b) In case, an Officer promoted to a higher post before 1-1-1996 draws less pay in the revised scale than his junior shall be advanced to an amount equal to the pay fixed for his junior in the higher post, from the date of promotion of the junior.
15.89 These benefits, one or the other, shall be extended, if the anomaly which we have indicated is the direct consequence of the application of the fixation principles enunciated by us.
15.90 This takes us to fixation of pay for those who are now enjoying the benefit of the 5th CPC scales. It may be noted that the 5th CPC scales have also been pegged at 1510 AICPI level as on 1-1-1996. 5th CPC had recommended 20% fixation benefit of basic pay. But the Government has allowed 40% fixation benefit while implementing, in the following manner :
a) Basic Pay as on 1-1-1996
b) D.A. as on 1-1-1996
c) First instalment of IR - Rs.100/-
d) Second instalment of IR - 10% of Basic Pay
e) Fixation benefit of 40% of Basic Pay as on 1-1-1996.
15.91 Even in all such cases, allow another 10% fitment (additionality) benefit on the basic pay as on 1-1-1996.
15.92 By aggregating the sum as aforestated, the pay of the Officer shall be refixed as per the principles enunciated earlier.
15.93 Date of Next Increment in the Revised Scale :
a) We also recommend that the next increment of an Officer in the revised scale shall be granted on the date he would have drawn the increment, had he continued in the existing scale.
b) If an Officer draws his next increment in the revised scale under clause (a) above and thereby becomes eligible for higher pay than his senior whose next increment falls due at a later date, then, the pay of such senior shall be refixed equal to the pay of the junior from the date on which the junior becomes entitled to higher pay. In cases where the pay of an Officer is stepped up in terms of clause (b) above, the next increment shall be granted after completing requisite qualifying service, i.e., one year.
15.94 Needless to state that an Officer who reaches stagnation level, must be given stagnation increment as prevalent in the respective States/UTs.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS :
15.95 Having made the foregoing recommendations on the pay structure, it becomes necessary to quantify the financial implications of these recommendations to every State/U.T.
15.96 This is a bit difficult task since actual strength of the Judicial Officers in each cadre at each pay stage, as on date, is not available with us. We have only the pay scale-wise number of Officers in each State/U.T.
15.97 We have, however, on the basis of data available - the difference between average yearly emoluments (i.e., pay + D.A.) of the Judicial Officers in the existing scales of pay and that on the basis of new scales of pay recommended- we have estimated the financial liability on introduction of new scales.
15.98 The available information shows that 12,771 posts on regular pay scales are in existence. While calculating the financial implications, the old scales of pay, prior to the implementation of 5th CPC scales, have been considered. Since-then, certain State Governments/UTs have revised their pay scales. In some States/UTs, 5th CPC scales have been adopted in toto while in others, the scales have been modified. Further, in some States, pay scales have been revised based on the recommendations of their own pay Commission or Official Pay Committee. If these pay scales have already been adopted, the financial liability will, to that extent, be reduced.
15.99 Introduction of measures for removal of stagnation such as ACP for both Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Civil Judges (Senior Division) and also Selection Grades and Super Time Scales for District Judges and slight variations in the grading of Judicial Officers are not taken into consideration in this calculation.
15.100 Further, the Commission, although has not made modifications in the pension and gratuity scale (except pension structure for past pensioners), the merger of D.A., I.R. and 10% fitment benefit automatically increase the financial burden on State Exchequer. Similarly, other recommendations pertaining to allowances will also entail additional expenditure, the estimation of which would not be possible.
15.101 Broadly, the totality of the additional financial burden upon the revised scales being given effect to would be of the order of Rs.95.71 crores for a year for all States/UTs. This includes the payment of IR given to the Judicial Officers and also the benefits of 5th CPC scales. Details of financial implication, State-wise, are given in the appendix. The summary of the same is given below for immediate reference :
Estimated Financial Implications of New Scales of Pay to Judicial Officers
Sl. No.
State / UT
Number of Judicial Officers
Additional Financial Burden
(Rs. in Crores)
1.
Andhra Pradesh
672
4.14
2.
Assam
221
2.05
3.
Bihar
1648
11.60
4.
Goa
44
0.34
5.
Gujarat
640
4.98
6.
Haryana
266
2.23
7.
Himachal Pradesh
94
0.70
8.
Jammu & Kashmir
162
1.45
9.
Karnataka
632
4.10
10.
Kerala
382
2.53
11.
Madhya Pradesh
988
8.26
12.
Maharashtra
1250
8.60
13.
Manipur
30
0.33
14.
Meghalaya
8
0.11
15.
Mizoram
53
0.44
16.
Nagaland
22
0.22
17.
Orissa
457
3.72
18.
Punjab
301
2.45
19.
Rajasthan
761
5.60
20.
Sikkim
12
0.12
21.
Tamil Nadu
602
3.74
22.
Tripura
73
0.45
23.
Uttar Pradesh
2239
17.37
24.
West Bengal
773
7.16
25.
Delhi
419
2.84
26.
Lakshadweep
3
0.03
27.
Pondicherry
19
0.15
Total :
12771
95.71
15.102 We are not unaware of the fact that there are equally other important calls from other departments on the States' revenue, but as the Supreme Court has observed in the All India Judges' cases, the States should not make any grievance on the little hike in the emoluments of Judicial Officers which is as important as the other two organs of the State.
15.103 We have also made a recommendation by way of substantial relief to the States - in a separate chapter - that the Central Government shall bear fifty per cent of all the expenditure of the Subordinate Courts, including but limited to, the emoluments of the Judicial Officers, the Court Staff, and the infrastructure with proper furniture and fixture in Courts.
* * * * *
16. THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE STATES
SHOULD BE JOINT RESPOSIBILITY
OF
THE CENTRE
AND
THE STATES
16.1 Administration of justice, constitution and organisation of all courts, except the Supreme Court and High Courts, was originally included in the State List under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. But, by the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976, it has been brought to the Concurrent List. Entry 11A in the Concurrent List reads :
"11A. Administration of justice; Constitution and Organisation of all Courts, except the Supreme Court and High Courts."
16.2 Let us turn to the Constitutional provisions relating to Subordinate Courts :
Chapter VI Part VI of the Constitution provides for Subordinate Courts. The relevant Articles may be read :
"233. Appointment of district judges - (1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
"(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment."
"234. Recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service - Appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
"235. Control over subordinate courts - The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law.
"236. Interpretation - In this Chapter -
(a) the expression "district judge" includes judge of a city civil court, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge and assistant sessions judge;
(b) the expression "judicial service" means a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of district judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of district judge.
"237. Application of the provisions of this Chapter to certain class or classes of magistrates - The Governor may by public notification direct that the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and any rules made thereunder shall with effect from such date as may be fixed by him in that behalf apply in relation to any class or classes of magistrates in the State as they apply in relation to persons appointed to the judicial service of the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the notification."
16.3 It will be seen from the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution that the State Government has no control over the judges of District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto. It has no power either in their selection, appointments, posting, promotion, transfer, grant of leave or any one of their service conditions except the appointment is made in the name of the Governor in consultation with the High Court.
16.4 In sum, the Government has neither the power to interfere nor interdict the matters pertaining to appointment and service conditions of the Judicial Officers. The advice of the High Court in all such matters is binding on the Government. The Government, however, is liable to meet all the expenditure of the Subordinate Judiciary, including the infrastructure of Courts, quarters for Judicial Officers and their emoluments.
16.5 Similar is the position with regard to staff of the Courts. The Public Service Commission or the State Level Recruitment Committee selects them and High Court / District Judges would post them in different Courts. Their service conditions are regulated with the consultation of the High Courts.
16.6 Every State Government is pleading inability to meet the increasing financial burden of the judicial administration. Even the additional courts sought by the High Court are not sanctioned. The Courts in Moffusil places are located in dilapidated buildings, with no adequate furniture either for Judges or for lawyers. The old ricketty furniture, is a sight to see in the Moffusil Courts. Such Courts, instead of awe inspiring to the litigant public, have become pathetic sight to see.
16.7 The Central Government recently has included the infrastructure of Courts as "planned item" to enable them to provide half of the expenditure required for the purpose and the States sharing the other half of the expenditure.
16.8 We thought that this partnership between the Centre and the States has improved the much needed infrastructure of Courts and Quarters for Judicial Officers. But, we have been informed that, it is not so.
16.9 In order to ascertain the actual state of affairs of the conditions of Courts in all States, we invited the views of High Courts and State Governments by formulating the following Questions in our general Questionnaire :
61. Are the Courts at Tehsil/District Level are properly maintained and adequately furnished? Please narrate the deficiency if any and suggest remedies.
61.2 Recently, the infrastructure of Courts has been made a planned item. To what extent, has this improved the situation?
16.10 The question-wise replies received from the respondents are briefly summarised herein below :
16.10.1 ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT :
61. By and large yes. Repairs are being carried out by R&B Department as and when requisitioned by the Unit Heads. The High Court has also been taking up with the Chief Engineer (Building), Hyderabad for effecting repairs to the Court Buildings. Further the State Government has been providing a sum of Rupees one crore every year under MINOR WORKS. High Court is according sanctions for major repairs providing amenities such as additional office accommodation, water supply, toilet facilities, party sheds etc., in the Subordinate Court every year.
The reports from Districts reveal that the response from R&B officials for carrying out maintenance work is not prompt.
61.2 Construction of Court Buildings and Residential Quarters for Judicial Officers has been treated as a Centrally sponsored Scheme from the year 1993-94 onwards and the expenditure on the scheme is to be borne by the Central Government and the State Government on 50:50 basis. This measure has substantially helped in building up new Court complexes, residential quarters.
16.10.2 GAUHATI HIGH COURT :
61. The Courts at the Munsiff/District level are not properly maintained. they are not properly furnished. Lack of maintenance of Courts is due to inadequate funds with the P.W.D. to maintain the Courts.
61.2 Although infrastructure of the Courts has been made a planned item in the Budget, the amount received by the State Government for the infrastructure of the Courts is not made available by the State Government promptly. As a result, any development in the infrastructure has to await till funds are received from the State Government.
16.10.3 PATNA HIGH COURT :
61. Not at all. Furniture are not provided at most of the places. Water supply position is not proper.
61.2 To no appreciable and perceptible extent.
16.10.4 DELHI HIGH COURT :
61. Majority of the Courts in Delhi are housed in courts building at Tis Hazari. There are 138 proper court rooms and 89 courts are in improvised rooms which were set up after converting the office room to meet the acute shortage of court accommodation. The improvised court rooms lack basic necessities of chamber and toilets. As a result a group of judicial officers have to share their toilet or use public/litigants' toilets. Even the lady judicial officers do not have chamber and toilet facility in improvised rooms. It causes great inconvenience and hardship to them. Most of the rooms are without proper light and air and are unhygenic.
Similar is the situation in Patiala House which was a residential building and it was converted into courts. Most of the court rooms are like improvised court room of Tis Hazari. They are very small, and dingy and without proper light and air.
Some furniture of course has been supplied to the courts and chambers of the judicial officers but it is not befitting to their status and it is far short of their need.
Above all over one lakh of litigants, lawyers and other public visit Tis Hazari Courts every day. Tis Hazari Court building which was built in 1956, for the use of few courts, is now grossly inadequate for the present need. As a result public conveniences are also inadequate to meet the demand of lakhs of daily visitors creating insanitary and unhygenic conditions in the building. The problem is aggravated by poor maintenance of the building by the PWD. The demand for more accommodation for making proper court rooms, public conveniences etc., has fallen flat on the deaf ears of the Government.
Recently under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court some more rooms which were in occupation of civil adminsitrative offices of the Government in Tis Hazari building were given but they have not solved the problem of shortage of court rooms etc., at all.
61.2 As far as Delhi is concerned, it has not made any change except that a new court complex has come up at Karkardooma. But more court rooms are needed in Tis Hazari and Patiala House Court complexes with all ancillary facilities.
16.10.5 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT :
61. The Courts at district level as well as City level are not properly maintained nor adequately furnished. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had to pass orders directing the State Government to immediately provide necessary funds for the furniture, stationery, maintenance of the building etc. Even after directions of Court, no satisfactory steps have been taken by the Government to maintain court buildings or to furnish them adequately. The Government is always reluctant to part with money for the maintenance of the building, furniture, stationery etc., of the Courts. Many of the Courts do not have even the place for dias for the Presiding Officers.
61.2 Though infrastructure of the Court has been made a planned item, it has not worked satisfactorily. Nor has it improved the situation at all, though the Central Government is required to bear half of the costs of the Court Building. In fact, the State Government is not prepared to provide other half of the costs and this has resulted into stagnation.
16.10.6 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH :
61. The Courts at District/Tehsil level are properly maintained and adequately furnished except the Courts at Divisional Headquarter at Mandi, where the Courts are housed in a very old building, which has virtually out-lived its life. The Court of Sub Judge at Jawali is housed in a rented private building. The Court of Sub Judge at Anni is housed in a Court room spared by the Revenue Department and there is no proper accommodation for the office. A few other Courts are also housed in old buildings rendered unworthy of being used as Court/Office rooms. However, the process for construction of new Court buildings at such places has been initiated and the cases are on different stages. In the near future appropriate and adequate accommodation will be available to all the existing Courts.
The State Government shall provide all the necessary infrastructure for commencing the functioning of the Courts in any place and also provide all facilities necessary for the existing Courts to function properly.
61.2 Though in the recent past, visible progress has been made in providing infrastructure of Courts, however, during the last year for want of adequate funds, virtually no headway could be made for advancing the process of providing infrastructure of Courts at various places including even such places where the construction was near completion. Ignoring this exception, making of infrastructure of Courts a planned item has definitely led to improve the situation.
16.10.7 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR :
61. The Courts are by and large furnished with meagre funds available with the High Court. However, these Courts are not properly maintained and adequately furnished by the State Government.
61.2 In the State of Jammu & Kashmir, it is not a planned item. As the Scheme is not being implemented in its true spirit and funds are not channelised to provide infrastructural facility for Courts, therefore, no improvement can be noticed in the situation.
16.10.8 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA :
61. The Courts at Taluk/District are not adequately furnished and the scale of furniture fixed for the Courts is inadequate and a proposal has been made for enhancement of furniture to the Courts.
61.2 Inclusion of infrastructure of Courts in the planned item is bound to improve the situation. However, desired result has not been achieved as sufficient funds are not provided in Karnataka. A proposal has been made for providing adequate infrastructure of Courts by sanctioning Rupees One Crore and the said proposal is pending before the Government.
16.10.9 KERALA HIGH COURT :
61. The Court buildings are not properly maintained nor adequately furnished. Most of such Court buildings are very old. Proposal for construction of buildings wherever found necessary is pending. Wherever land is readily available, administrative sanction has been recommended. Enough funds are not available and unless funds to the tune of a few hundred crores are immediately available, the proposals cannot be implemented. This is a major problem which has to be dealt with seriously.
The Courts are not adequately furnished. Old ricketty chairs are a common sight in all the courts. Provision for infrastructural facilities to the courts should be made a plan item so as to make available to the courts a suitable and conducive working atmosphere.
61.2 Buildings are being constructed for Courts and quarters under the plan 50 per cent centrally sponsored scheme, subject to availability of land and allotment of funds in a phased manner. Because of financial constraints, the desired effect has not been achieved.
16.10.10 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
61. No, because of lack of adequate funds.
61.2 Yet to be implemented in our State.
16.10.11 BOMBAY HIGH COURT :
61. No. In most of the Districts in Maharashtra, the Courts do not have adequate buildings and furniture.
61.2 The effects are yet to be felt.
16.10.12 ORISSA HIGH COURT :
61. Courts at Tahasil and District level are not properly maintained and adequately furnished. This is due to want of sufficient fund provided by the State Government.
61.2 After the infrastructure of courts has been made a planned item, now court buildings and residential quarters are constructed.
16.10.13 PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT :
61. The Courts at Tahsil/District level are not at all properly maintained. Neither there are proper court rooms nor sufficient furniture have been provided for court staff, lawyers and litigants nor there is any proper provision for toilets in court complexes. Most of the judges also do not have proper chambers. Generator sets have also not been installed in order to meet out the sudden failure of electricity.
61.2 Although the infrastructure of courts has been made a planned item, yet the results are far from satisfactory and it needs more attention to improve the situation.
16.10.14 RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT :
61. All the Courts at Tahsil and in the District are not properly maintained and adequately furnished. The Courts are not provided with adequate budget for furniture to be provided in chamber, court-room and staff-room. At many places sufficient space for chamber, court-room and staff-room is not provided.
In some of the Courts even under-trials are not provided proper place in the court premises. At so many places, litigant-sheds are not constructed by the State Government.
61.2 After making infrastructure of courts as a planned-item the situation has improved to a little extent and gradual process of improvement is going on in a phased plan which will take time.
16.10.15 HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM :
61. At present in this State new buildings have been constructed or are under construction. Central financial assistance properly utilised.
61.2 In this State the process is on. The situation is improving.
16.10.16 HIGH COURT OF MADRAS :
61. With the available Government funds, Courts are maintained but still more has to be done. Enough funds have to be allocated considering Judiciary as one of the wings of State.
61.2 As the infrastructure of courts has been made a planned item, things have improved in getting funds from the Government.
16.10.17 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT :
61. At Tehsil/District level, efforts are made to maintain and furnish the courts properly with whatever sum is made available to the court by the Government but for regular maintenance of residential and non-residential buildings it is required that P.W.D. or some other Government agency should undertake this work under the order of the Government.
61.2 After the infrastructure of Courts, has been made a planned item an overall improvement is being felt gradually.
16.10.18 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT :
61. The buildings neither properly maintained nor adequately furnished. Most of the buildings are worn out and some of them leak waters at the time of Rainy Season, as for example, in Alipore Criminal Court buildings. Court rooms are insufficient and stuffy. There is very scanty seating arrangement not only for the litigants but also for the lawyers in some of the Courts. Furniture are not at all sufficient. Some of the buildings are so much dilapidated as those are unfit for using as Court rooms although courts have to run therein. There have been incidents of falling down of plasters of the ceiling missing the head of Judge.
Adequate fund should be provided for remodelling the buildings by phased programme considering the urgency.
61.2 Some programmes have been taken up towards improvements of the situation to provide better infrastructure to the Courts in respect of the court building, residential quarters for the matter remained stalled for sizeable periods of time due to want of fund.
16.11 From the comments received from the High Courts, it will be clear that Court buildings, almost everywhere, are in a bad shape. They are poorly maintained with ricketty furniture. Even after the infrastructure of Courts has been made a planned item, things have not substantially improved, barring in one or two States.
16.12 It is the uniform opinion of most of the High Courts that the State Government is always reluctant to part with money for the maintenance of the buildings, providing furniture, stationery etc., for the Courts and for construction of new buildings.
16.13 We, however, take it that it may not be deliberate design of the State Governments, but evidently due to the financial crunch.
16.14 Let us turn to the views of the State Governments.
THE STATE GOVERNMENTS :
16.15 All the State Governments, save Kerala and Maharashtra Governments, have reported that there is no deficiency in the infrastructure of Courts.
16.16 It seems to us that they appear to be blissfully ignorant of the pathetic condition of the Court buildings with miserable furniture and fixtures.
16.17 The Kerala Government and Maharashtra Government, however, are frank enough to admit that the funds crunch is the greatest problem to improve the infrastructure of Courts and Quarters for Judicial Officers.
16.18 We are of opinion, if things are allowed to continue in this manner, it is neither good for the judiciary nor for the litigant public. A lot of new Courts are required to be established by increasing the Judge strength in all cadres to clear the arrears and to meet the ever-increasing inflow of cases.
16.19 What then is the remedy?
16.20 There is no point in whipping the States alone.
16.21 We have adopted one set of Courts both for the States and Centre, unlike in the United States.
16.22 In the United States of America, there are two sets of Courts. There are Federal Courts for enforcement of Federal Laws. There are State Courts which are exclusively concerned with State Laws. The Federal Courts are maintained by the Federal Government while State Courts are maintained by the State Governments. These Courts are functioning side by side in every State.
16.23 But our Courts are concerned with State Laws as well as Central Laws.
16.24 There are quite a large number of Central enactments, which we have set out in the list appended hereto as Annexure. It runs into a long list of about 340. The major Acts like Procedural Codes, Indian Evidence Act and Indian Penal Code may be common both to the States and the Centre. Some of the Acts may be obsolete, but bulk of the Central Laws remain live. The additions to that list are made every year by the Parliament.
16.25 This being the position, we fail to see why the State Governments alone be burdened with the financial liability of the Subordinate Courts.
16.26 Indeed, this question was repeatedly presented before us during the course of hearing. The representatives of the following State Governments have pleaded with us for recommending that the Centre should equally share expenditure on Subordinate Courts :
(1) Sri Manish Gupta, IAS, Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal.
(2) Sri K. Mohan Chandran, IAS, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Kerala.
(3) Sri Sudhir Sharma, IAS, Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Tripura.
(4) Sri K. Manoj Kumar, Joint Secretary, Government of Tripura.
(5) Sri Sudhir Kumar, Secretary, Appointments, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
(6) Sri Shiv Prakash, Joint Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
(7) Sri M.R. Hegde, Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.
(8) Sri M.L. Sharma, Additional Secretary (Home), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
(9) Sri K. Pradeep Chandra, IAS, Secretary (Finance), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
16.27 We find considerable force in their submissions. Efficient justice delivery system is sine qua non for maintenance of law and order. Speedy justice is one of the guaranteed fundamental rights to citizens. It must, therefore, be the joint responsibility of the Central and the State Governments to ensure that the judicial administration does not suffer from any handicaps.
16.28 The Judiciary is not a heavy burden either on the State or the Centre. Unlike in other Departments, more than half of the amount which is spent on Indian Judiciary is raised from the Judiciary itself by means of Court Fees, Stamp duty and miscellaneous matters.
16.29 That apart, as we have highlighted in the "Preface" to our Report, the expenditure on judiciary in our country in terms of GNP is relatively low. It is not more than 0.2 per cent. In Korea, it is more than 0.2 per cent; in Singapore, it is 1.2 per cent; in U.K. it is 4.3 per cent; and in U.S.A. it is 1.4 per cent.
16.30 Therefore, we trust and hope that the Central Government will not make any grievance on our proposal.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS :
16.31 For the reasons aforesaid and in the interest of strengthening and promoting the independence of the justice delivery system, we recommend as follows :
1) Each State must prepare a 5-Year Plan, to improve the existing infrastructure of Courts, construction of new Courts, providing furniture, fixtures, library etc., to all Courts and for construction of Quarters for all Judicial Officers.
2) The Central Government must share half of the annual expenditure on Subordinate Courts and Quarters for Judicial Officers.
3) We have been told by the representatives of North Eastern States and Sikkim that about 90 to 92 per cent of the expenditure in their States is met by the Central Government under the provisions of 'Special Category of States'. We make it clear that our aforesaid recommendation is without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the North Eastern States and the State of Sikkim.
* * * * *
17. ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION SCHEME (ACP)
AND FUNCTIONAL SCALE
17.1 During our preliminary study, we have received number of requests from the Judicial Officers that they should be accorded advance career progression scales.
17.2 In order to ascertain the views and remarks on this aspect, we have specifically provided the following Question in our general Questionnaire.
Q.21 In States like Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal, there are Selection Grade, Supertime Scale and ‘Above Supertime Scale’ related to number of years of service in the cadre of District Judges.
In the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Civil Judges (Junior Division) are entitled to a time-bound scale after 8 years of service and a special promotional post in a higher scale after 16 years of service, if stagnated in the same post. In Haryana State, there is senior scale after 5 years and Selection Grade after 12 years of service. In Punjab State also such scales are given after 8 and 18 years of service. In Uttar Pradesh, there is higher scale after 5 years of service.
In West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, I.A.S. Pay Rules of 1954 as amended up-to-date are made applicable to Higher Judicial Service.
What are your suggestions for allowing time-bound pay scales for career progression. Should it be provided to every cadre? If so, please justify with cogent reasons and suggest such time-bound pay scales and eligibility period for such entitlement.
17.3 The High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Patna (Bihar), Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Bombay (Maharashtra), Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) and Calcutta (West Bengal) have favoured introduction of ‘Career Progression Time Bound Pay Scales’ to prevent stagnation due to absence of promotional avenues. They have suggested that the benefit of higher time bound scale should not be automatic irrespective of past record of service; there should be a screening committee to examine the individual cases to evaluate the performance and those who come up to the expected level would be given such benefits.
17.4 However, the High Courts of Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh are against giving any ‘Time Bound Promotion Scheme’, since according to them, such benefits would generally tend to develop complacency in the Officers.
17.5 Almost all the Service Associations have pleaded for time bound pay scales at each interval of 5 to 10 years in each cadre.
17.6 It may be stated that an ACP system is intended to assure pay progression to Officers within the time-bound schedule. The scheme is designed to allow an officer the pay upgradation when functional considerations do not permit promotion in the cadre-hierarchy. With ACPs, the Officer moves into the next higher scale. The basic hypothesis here is that a person of considerable experience needs to be suitably rewarded to keep his tempo of work with high moral values and ought not to be allowed to stagnate or degenerate.
17.7 The Commission has noted that there is lack of promotional opportunities to Judicial Officers in view of the limited number of posts. It is, therefore, necessary to provide them some form of ‘in-situ’ arrangements on a time-bound basis.
17.8 At the outset, the ACP, which we intend to propose for the first two cadres, is not linked to the availability of the promotional posts. It is not restricted to the percentage of posts in the cadre. Nor it is on functional basis. The scheme is intended to afford reasonable opportunity to all the Officers in the grade to get financial upgradation in a time-frame.
17.9 OUR RECOMMENDATION :
A. Civil Judge (Junior Division) :
We recommend the following two Assured Career Progression Scales to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) :
i) Rs.10750-300-13150-350-14900 after 5 years of continuous service from the date of entry.
ii) Rs.12850-300-13150-350-15950-400-17550 after completion of another 5 years of continuous service.
We have recommended the second ACP with a definite purpose that a Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at the end of the 10th year of continuous service, shall be able to get the initial pay scale of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) to avoid frustration due to stagnation, if there is no promotion forthcoming to him in the meanwhile.
B. Civil Judge (Senior Division) :
We recommend the following two Assured Career Progression Scales to the Civil Judge (Senior Division):
i) Rs.14200-350-15950-400-18350 after 5 years of continuous service.
ii) Rs.16750-400-19150-450-20500 after completion of another 5 years of continuous service.
Here again, we have recommended the second ACP to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), which is equivalent to the entry level pay scale of the District Judge to avoid disappointment and frustration for want of promotional opportunity.
This conferment of benefits by way of ACPs should not be automatic but on the appraisal of their work and performance by a Committee of Senior Judges of the High Court constituted for the purpose.
We further recommend that these financial upgradations should not be provided to those who have declined regular promotion on any personal ground.
We also recommend that in case where an Officer in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) or Civil Judge (Senior Division) who has been provided the ACP, refuses functional promotion to the higher cadre in his turn of seniority and merit, he shall be reverted to the original pay scale.
C. District Judges:
We recommend the following financial upgradations on functional basis:
i) Selection Grade Scale of Rs.18750-400-19150-450-21850-500-23850.
This scale would be available to 25% of the cadre posts and would be given to those having not less than five years of continuous service in the cadre.
ii) Super Time Scale of Rs.22850-500-24850.
This Scale would be available to holders of 10% of the Selection Grade District Judges and would be given to those who have put in not less than three years of continuous service as Selection Grade District Judges.
We recommend that both these scales be given on the assessment of merit-cum-seniority.
* * * * *
18. DEARNESS ALLOWANCE - A PERSPECTIVE
18.1 Dearness Allowance (DA) is an allowance paid to employees to compensate them for erosion of real income / wage due to inflation, which they were getting on a particular bench-mark date. This bench-mark date is generally the date from which a pay structure / a set of pay scales is given effect to.
18.2 The increase in the cost of living and the consequent erosion of income is measured in terms of a consumer price index number and, DA to be sanctioned to employees is determined on the basis of the percentage increase in that index or the point-factor system.
18.3 The very concept of DA is a post-Second World War phenomenon. Initially, the frequency and quantum of DA given were more or less on an adhoc basis, by way of response to demand of employees for wage increases to mitigate their hardship. Later on, the payment of DA was linked to a Consumer Price Index number. Consequently, a formula came to be evolved, with reference to :
a) the basis for computation of increase in cost of living,
b) the frequency of DA revision and
c) the extent to which neutralisation of such increase would be given.
18.4 Periodical Committees / Commissions were constituted in the past by the Central Government to examine the question of payment of DA to the employees. The Committees’ / Commissions’ recommendations were generally accepted and implemented by the Government of India and the State Governments also followed it.
18.5 The III Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommended payment of DA whenever the CPI rose by 8 points over the index of 200 (with base 1960 = 100). This principle was changed in 1986 as per the recommendations of the IV CPC. The IV CPC recommended the grant of DA on a 'percentage system' of the basic pay.
18.6 Similarly, the extent of neutralisation of price increases given to various categories of employees has also undergone change from time to time. However, the general pattern adopted, all over the country is to give the benefit of 100% neutralisation to the lower categories of employees, with tapering scale of neutralisation to higher categories of officials. The extent of neutralisation granted with effect from 1-1-1973 (based on the Report of III CPC) ranged from 100 per cent to 35 per cent. But, upon the recommendation of the IV CPC, this method of neutralisation has been altered with effect from 1-1-1986.
18.7 As per the recommendation of the IV CPC, DA was admissible twice a year, that is, on 1st January and 1st July and each instalment of DA was calculated with reference to the percentage increase in the 12 monthly average of All India Consumer Price Index (AICPI) (base 1960) over the average index of 608, which was the base for the pay scales recommended by IV CPC. Thus the extent of neutralisation based on the recommendation of IV CPC ranged from 100 per cent to 65 per cent. This system of tapering scale of neutralisation was rested on the assumption that employees drawing higher salary would be able to absorb the impact of price rise to certain extent, but lower categories of employees need full protection in the interest of social justice, since they cannot withstand the effects of price-rise.
18.8 However, it may be noted that even 100 per cent neutralisation may only protect the real value of wages of employees as on a fixed, earlier bench-mark date, but it does not add to their real income. Similarly, the higher salaried officials would feel the pinch of erosion in their real income on the lower percentage of neutralisation. Besides, over a period of time, such tapering neutralisation of DA would seriously distort the relativity of pay scales that have been determined after taking into account factors like qualifications, training, nature of work, degree of responsibilities etc.
18.9 The anomaly in the differential neutralisation has been highlighted in the report of the Karnataka IV Pay Commission in 1992, of which, the Chairman of the present Commission was also its Chairman. There, the IV Karnataka Pay Commission observed :
"We are highlighting these issues to bring out the unfairness which is inherent in the present scheme of neutralisation of DA for price rise. We have refrained from making any specific recommendation in this regard mainly because the scheme has been evolved on All India basis and the State Government has adopted it. We only hope that the future Pay Commission appointed by Government of India will take note of the drawbacks in the scheme of neutralisation of DA for rising price and formulate a more objective scheme based on fairness."1
18.10 The V CPC has also realised the injustice in the graduated scale of neutralisation formulae. It has observed :
"Inflation neutralisation on a graduated scale in the present circumstances will be anachronistic and unduly unjust to senior officers.
It went a step further and said :
" . . . . . . . the Government’s conscious intervention in removal of the unjust practice of differential neutralisation of DA is a must. Accordingly, we recommend that inflation neutralisation be made uniform at 100 per cent at all levels."
1. Report of the Karnataka Fourth Pay Commission, Chapter XV, page 432-433.
18.11 The V CPC, among other things recommended that AICPI for Industrial workers to be continued as the basis for the purposes of calculating DA and the existing practice of using 12-monthly average of AICPI for calculating DA also to be continued.
18.12 The Government of India and also the State Governments in general have accepted and implemented the principles enunciated by the V CPC.
18.13 We consider that the same principle of neutralisation should be extended to Judicial Officers also.
OUR RECOMMENDATION :
18.14 We recommend that the same DA formula as being implemented at present to the Central Government employees be followed in the case of Judicial Officers, in every State / UT.
* * * * *
19. ALLOWANCES, AMENITIES AND ADVANCES *
ELECTRICITY AND WATER CHARGES :
19.1 The Judicial Officers do the office / court work even in their residence. So, the High Courts of Patna, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have suggested that electricity and water charges relatable to the residential office must be borne by the State.
19.2 Almost all the Service Associations have urged the Commission to recommend that the entire electricity and water charges payable by the Judicial Officers are to be borne by their State Governments.
19.3 But this has been opposed by most of the State Governments.
OUR RECOMMENDATION :
19.4 We have examined this matter carefully. We consider that since Judicial Officers are required to perform the judicial work / administrative work in home office also, it is necessary that certain portion of electricity and water charges should be borne by the State Government.
_________________________________________________________________
* The directions issued by the Supreme Court with regard to allowances and other related matters in ALL INDIA JUDGES€ ASSOCIATION CASE ((1993) 4 SCC 288) are mere aids and incidental to and supplemental of the main direction and intended as a transitional measure till a comprehensive National Policy is evolved. Each High Court / State Government can, therefore, adopt these recommendations of the Commission by appropriate policy rules framed and thereupon, the directions issued by the Supreme Court need not be followed. [See: (1999) 4 SCC 235].
19.5 We accordingly recommend that atleast 50% of charges of electricity and water consumed by the concerned Judicial Officer in his residential accommodation be paid by the State Government.
19.6 The payment by reimbursement shall be made to the Judicial Officers on quarterly basis by the Controlling Unit Officers i.e. District Judge, upon production of the receipts for having paid the bills.
* * * * *
HOME ORDERLY
19.7 The system of providing Orderlies in the residence of Judicial Officers is prevalent in some of the States like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamilnadu. What is being done is one of the court Peons / Attenders is posted at the residence of Judicial Officers. But there are complaints that those Attenders are being misused and treated as regular domestic servants. In many cases, the Judicial Officers invite trouble when such attendants resist anything but office-related work. This has led to departmental enquiry against the Judicial Officers. Some have even lost the chances of their promotion. Such incidents are highlighted in Newspapers much to the embarrassment of the officers.
19.8 In some States, the Judicial Officers are paid cash allowance from Rs.500/- to Rs.750/- to engage a servant of their own.
19.9 Against this background, the Commission had formulated the following question :
"Are the Judicial Officers provided Home Orderly? Instead, would you suggest cash payment to Judicial Officers to engage Home Orderly of their choice?"
19.10 The replies received may be summarised as follows :
19.10.1 Most of the High Courts have suggested that the Judicial Officers be allowed to engage an Attender (as Home Orderly) of their choice with corresponding reduction in the number of office attenders.
19.10.2 Even the Service Associations have urged that instead of official home orderly, all Judicial Officers be paid in cash equal to the emoluments of a Group 'D' official to engage a servant of their own choice. He should not be governed by the Service Rules or official control.
19.10.3 We have considered carefully the suggestions and comments of the High Courts / Associations and State Governments on this issue. In our opinion, the official Attender should not be misused by the judicial officers in their own interest. We consider that the judicial officers must be free to engage a servant of their choice for all types of work at the Home and Home Office:
19.11 OUR RECOMMENDATIONS :
a) Payment of Home Orderly Allowance in lieu of Home Orderly (called as Home Orderly Allowance) be paid to every Judicial Officer with liberty to appoint a person of his choice who would be wholly under his control. Judicial Officers are, however, advised to appoint a Home Orderly-cum-Driver or preferably an Orderly who knows driving so that his services may be utilised even for driving in case of need, if the Officer owns a car.
b) Every Judicial Officer be paid Home Orderly Allowance of Rs.2500/- p.m. This allowance is approximately equal to only the basic pay of a Group 'D' Government employee who is also entitled to D.A. and other allowances. Since we are not recommending Home Orderly to be appointed as Government Servant, we have recommended a consolidated sum of Rs.2500/-.
c) Neither the High Court nor the State Government is responsible for the regularisation / absorption of such person and he remains in service only as long as the concerned Officer requires him / her.
d) The Judicial Officer must every month produce to the office, the name and address of the person appointed as Home Orderly and the acknowledgement of the person for having received the salary.
e) The Home Orderly Allowance shall be drawn by the Judicial Officer along with his pay and other allowances in his monthly pay bill.
* * * * *
NEWSPAPER / MAGAZINE
19.12 Supply of Newspapers / Magazines to Judicial Officers is intended to widen their wisdom since they mainly confine themselves to Law Journals, Court files - to the exclusion of the world wide information. Besides, the Newspapers are the windows through which one could keep himself abreast with the socio-economic life of the community. Sometimes the Newspapers give the substance of the leading judgements of the Apex Court and High Courts.
19.13 It is in this backdrop, the Commission had set out Question No.27 which reads as under :
Q.27. It is suggested that one National and one local newspaper be provided to every Judicial Officer at the cost of the State. Do you justify this proposal?
19.14 The replies received from all High Courts except the High Court of Patna are in favour of giving the said facility to Judicial Officers. Indeed, they suggest that one magazine also should be provided to the Judicial Officers. But the High Court of Patna has indicated that only Controlling Officers should get this benefit while the High Court of Kerala has not furnished its comments.
19.15 All the Service Associations have urged to recommend free supply of Newspaper / Magazine to all Judicial Officers.
19.16 Even the State Governments, viz., Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tamilnadu have favoured the free supply of Newspaper / Magazine.
19.17 The State Governments of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal etc., have stated that as per the directions of the Apex Court, the Judicial Officers are already supplied with Law Journals or paid cash in lieu of that, and therefore, they are not in favour of free supply of Newspaper to them in view of limited resources of the State.
19.18 It may be stated that certain level of Officers in the State and Central Governments are provided with Newspapers / Magazines at State cost.
19.19 A proficiency in one's regional language is imperative for any citizen. At the same time, we should not lose sight of the necessity of proficiency in English as almost all Acts, State and Central and Law Reports and Commentaries, are in English Language.
OUR RECOMMENDATION :
20.We recommend that all Judicial Officers be supplied Newspaper / Magazine at State cost as indicated below :
21.
Level of Officer
Entitlement
Newspaper
Magazine
Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.)
One National and one Regional
One
Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.)
One National and one Regional
One
District Judge
One National and one Regional
One
19.21 The Judicial Officer may get the Newspaper / Magazine as per his entitlement through his local hawker upon payment in the first instance, and the Officer could claim reimbursement from the office after producing the original bill.
* * * * *
CITY COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCE (CCA)
19.22 The Commission has circulated the following question seeking opinion on payment of CCA:
Q.28 : What is the principle upon which the City Compensatory Allowance is paid? Is there any need to change the basis of classification of Cities and the rates of city compensatory allowance. The allowance being given as compensation of certain cities' problems, should it not be uniform for all officers working in such cities?
19.23 The following is the summary of the replies received from the respondents :
i) Most of the High Courts / State Govts. / Service Associations are in favour of a uniform rate of CCA for a particular city.
ii) They want CCA on par with Central Government Rules. Some of them have suggested to adopt the recommendations of V C.P.C.
iii) Some of the Associations have suggested the pattern of CCA to be adopted on percentage basis instead of the slab system.
iv) It is also suggested by the High Court of Bombay that CCA should be fixed on the basis of cost of living index of the City instead of population. The same view has been expressed by the Maharashtra State Judicial Service Association.
19.24 The rationale behind the grant of City Compensatory Allowance is that while the minimum wage and other salaries are decided on average cost of living index and the DA component compensates the erosion based on the similar average, there are certain cities where the cost of living is higher, for which separate allowance is provided. The present scheme adopted by various State Governments follows the pattern of Govt. of India.
19.25 We have perused the discussion / recommendation of the V C.P.C. Though the ideal situation for classification of cities would be to link the payment of CCA to the difference between all India and regional price indices, this does not appear to be feasible since the AICPI and regional price indices are not comparable as they are based on different weighing diagrams. In this situation, the population criteria has to be continued for the purpose of classification of cities.
OUR RECOMMENDATION :
19.26 Each State Government has adopted classification of Cities based on the population criteria best suited to their local conditions. The C.C.A. rates vary from State to State. Since C.C.A., is a compensatory allowance peculiar to some cities for special reasons indicated elsewhere, it is not appropriate to provide separate C.C.A. rates to Judicial Officers who are working in the same atmosphere as other Government servants. Therefore, we recommend C.C.A., at the same rates payable to respective State Government employees.
* * * * *
ROBE ALLOWANCE
19.27 Prescribed uniform for Judicial Officers has been made mandatory. The Judges cannot come to the Court with the dress of their own choice. They must wear the uniform prescribed by the High Court. It has got its own advantage. It may not add colour to the Judge, but it will certainly create an awe inspiring atmosphere in the Court. The uniform generally consists of black coat, white shirt, black gown, necktie / band and white or grey trousers. Now-a-days, this uniform is pretty costly. So, we have received requests from all sides for what is termed as 'Robe Allowance'.
19.28 The Commission invited the views in this regard from all concerned by circulating the following question:
Q.No.29 : Some Associations want payment of Robe Allowance to Judicial Officers. There are views to the contrary also. What is your considered opinion?
19.29 From the replies received from the Respondents, it will be seen that already in Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Union Territory of Delhi, Robe Allowance is provided to Judicial Officers. The details are furnished as under:
a)
Delhi
An initial payment of Rs.5550/- and maintenance of Rs.300/- per month.
b)
Himachal Pradesh
An initial amount of not exceeding Rs.1150/- towards cost of one black coat length, one black zodiac neck-tie and also the stitching charge is paid to all Judicial Officers. In addition, the District / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judges are being supplied with black silk gowns.
c)
Orissa
Once in every two years, robe allowance at the rate of Rs.1200/- upto the rank of Chief Judicial Magistrate is being provided.
d)
Tripura
Rs.200/- per month is being paid as outfit allowance.
e)
Uttar Pradesh
Rs.300/- per month is being provided as robe allowance to all Judicial officers.
f)
West Bengal
Rs.500/- for every alternative year as robe allowance is being given to Judicial Officers.
19.30 The High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Punjab & Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim and Tamil Nadu have suggested payment of robe allowance. Some of the High Courts have even quantified the amount, both initial payment and maintenance allowance.
19.31 But the High Courts of Gujarat, Karnataka, Bombay and Calcutta are against granting robe allowance to Judicial Officers.
19.32 The High Courts of Kerala and Gauhati have not expressed any opinion.
19.33 The Governments of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tripura and Lakshadweep Administration have favoured payment of robe allowance. But the Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Sikkim are against providing such allowance.
19.34 When we turn to Service Associations, they are uniformly vociferous. They say, they cannot afford to meet the high cost of the uniform and the prohibitive cost of stitching.
19.35 The opinion of the former Judges is divided in this respect. Mr. Justice Ranganatha Misra, former CJI and Mr. Justice R.K. Mahajan (Rtd. Judge, Allahabad High Court) are for giving robe allowance. But Mr. Justice Sarkaria (former Judge, Supreme Court), Mr. Justice P.P. Bopanna (Rtd. Judge, Karnataka High Court) are against granting any robe allowance to Judicial Officers. Mr. B.S. Sekhon, former Law Secretary, Government of India is also against it.
19.36 It may be interesting to note the reasons given by certain High Courts for denying Robe Allowance to Judicial Officers.
19.37 The High Court of Gujarat has stated that the cost of clothes and stitching charges are increasing day by day. But the same has to be suffered by all citizens of the country and not by Judicial Officers alone. Normally Robe Allowance is granted to Class-IV employees and the demand for Robe Allowance can hardly be justified.
19.38 The High Court of Karnataka is of the opinion that it would not be befitting for the Judicial Officers to either claim or receive robe allowance.
19.39 The Bombay High Court has observed that in view of status and revised pay scales of Judicial Officers, it is not necessary to grant Robe Allowance.
19.40 The High Court of Calcutta, is against payment of any amount as Robe Allowance, regard being had to the dignity and prestige of the Judicial officers, though presently, they are paid Rs.500/- once in two years.
19.41 IN DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION (REGD.) & ANOTHER vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS1 the High Court of Delhi has considered the claim of the Delhi Judicial Officers for Robe Allowance and has ordered initially a lumpsum amount of Rs.5500/- and to pay every month a sum of Rs.300/- as dress allowance, by observing thus :
1. 1993 (3) SLR 583.
"It is undeniable that petitioners in the performance of their duties as judicial officers have to wear the dress as prescribed by High Court. There cannot be two opinions on that. This aspect it appears has not been properly appreciated by the Central Government and its argument that it could not be said that the petitioners would be able to discharge their duties more efficiently if they were supplied uniform by the Government or they were paid allowance for the same would appear to be rather irrelevant and devoid of reason.
"The Officers of the Delhi Judicial Service have to be provided with uniform and allowances for the maintenance of the same. It is obligatory for them to wear the dress as prescribed by Rules and Orders of this Court. We have not been able to find out as to what amount towards cost of dress and maintenance is paid to judicial officers by other States. It is not clear to us as to on what basis the State of Bihar is paying Rs.75/- per month as "gown allowance". We also do not know since when this amount is being paid. This gives us no guidance. As far as State of U.P. is concerned when the cost of books and clothes is spiraling the allowance of Rs.300/- p.m. paid to judicial officers there cannot have any bearing for the officers in Delhi where the cost of living is undeniably on the higher side. We can take judicial notice of the fact that the costs of law books or for that matter any books are so high that for a sum of Rs.300/- one cannot buy even a single good law book. We have also examined the recommendations of the Pay Commissions, particularly the Fourth one which have been reproduced above. These recommendations are of the year 1986. We cannot, however, compare the uniform for the Armed Forces with that prescribed for the judicial officers in the discharge of their respective duties. Judicial Officers are expected to be properly dressed as per rules and we do not think any period be fixed for buying a new dress for them. They should themselves change the dress as and when the need arises.
"Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that all the judicial officers be given a monthly allowance which shall be towards maintenance of the dress and also be enough for them to purchase dress out of that and not that they should be provided further cost of dress every three or five years. The break up of cost of clothes and stitching charges as given in the affidavit of Mr. S.K. Tandon and as mentioned above have not been disputed before us as no affidavit in reply thereto has been filed. We are of the opinion that all judicial officers who have been appointed to the service should be paid initially a lumpsum amount of Rs.5500/- and then they should be paid every month a sum of Rs.300/- as dress allowance for the purpose aforementioned."
19.42 IN STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS vs. RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER2, the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of High Courts making orders regarding the grant of Robe Allowance. The case before the Supreme Court arose in this way :
19.43 Originally, as per the State Government Notification dated 18.9.1992, Judicial Officers of Rajasthan were paid Dress Allowance of Rs.1500/- once in every three years with effect from 1.1.1992. Not being satisfied with that allowance, Judicial Officers moved the High Court in a Writ Petition claiming higher Dress Allowance. The Rajasthan High Court directed the State to pay to all Judicial Officers a lumpsum of Rs.8500/- towards Dress Allowance and thereafter pay Rs.300/- per month towards the maintenance of the dress. The High
2. Civil Appeal No.54 of 1997 disposed of on 24 May 1999.
Court also directed the State to consider revision of this allowance every four years, looking to the escalation in prices. Challenging the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, the State preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.54 of 1997.
19.44 The Supreme Court, after considering the matter and other relevant decisions on the question, observed :
"Whether a separate allowance for dress should or should not be granted also depends upon the total pay packet of the officer, his rank and status in society and whether in the context of his overall emoluments, it is necessary to give him a separate allowance. Employees in Class IV are normally given these allowances because their pay packets are perceived as at the lowest levels. One cannot ipso facto assume that the same logic will apply to Judicial Officers until we have an overall examination of their service conditions and a report from the National Judicial Pay Commission. In the judgments which were cited, this Court felt compelled to intervene only to ensure that proper functioning of the Judicial Officers was not affected. Unless the concerned service condition can be perceived as seriously affecting proper discharge of judicial duties, the High Court should not issue a mandamus directing the State to pay certain amounts to the Judicial Officers. [Underlining is ours]
xx xx xx
xx xx xx
"In the present case, looking to the parameters laid down by the Constitution and all the above decisions, the quantum of dress allowance or kit maintenance allowance was not required to be determined by the High Court in the manner in which it has done. "The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is, however, pointed out by the appellants that in November 1998, the State Government has decided to increase the uniform allowance from the existing rate of Rs.1500/- to Rs.3000/- in a block of three years. Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan has also stated before us that the State will pay the increased allowance as specified in its letter of 20-11-1998 addressed to the Advocate-on-Record by the Principal Secretary to the Government and issued by the Finance Department. The appellants are directed to pay the uniform allowance of Rs.3000/- in a block of three years accordingly.
"The appeal is allowed with the above direction. There will, however, be no order as to costs."
19.45 It is, therefore, now necessary for us to consider the matter regarding the Robe Allowance in all aspects; First, we may examine whether it is necessary to grant robe allowance to judicial officers; second; if so, how much it has to be allowed?
19.46 As we have made it clear in our Question No.29. there are two views on the question of granting robe allowance. Those who are against the proposal are of opinion that the judicial officers hold high and respectable posts and they should not demand dress allowance as Class IV servants. Nor they could be compared to the Military or Police personnel. It is also stated that the increasing cost of cloth and stitching should be borne by them like the general public.
19.47 The other view is that it has become quite expensive and hard to bear the cost of the prescribed dress and since it is compulsory it is necessary that they should be provided for.
OUR RECOMMENDATION :
19.48 We have carefully considered the rival contentions. We have also seen some of the judicial officers with torn coat and wornout neck-tie, particularly at the lowest cadre. It is a pity to see them with such shabby dress. In one Bar Association, which I have visited, I was informed by the judicial officer who is known for his honesty and integrity, that he cannot afford to buy decent dress to his wife and children and how he would be justified to make such purchase for himself.
19.49 That apart, "dress is an index of man's character". The clean and decent dress is also a part of the disciplined life. It also gives satisfaction. The judicial officers cannot afford to be shabbily dressed whether on the dais or off the dais. Particularly, he is a centre of gravity in the Court room, if not a centre of attraction. It is, therefore, necessary that he should be decently dressed.
19.50 Some High Courts have made rules that Judicial Officers whenever they want to see the Judges of the High Court must come with full suit. This order is made compulsory even in summer with exorbitant heat.
19.51 We are, however, concerned only with uniform for Court work.
19.52 The dress has become pretty costly. In fact, our Officers of the Commission have physically visited certain standard retail shops at Bangalore and collected necessary data relating to the retail price of clothing. The details are furnished below:
RAYMONDS
1.
COAT
Cloth 2 metres @ Rs.436/- per metre
Rs. 872-00
Stitching charges
Rs.1600-00
2.
TROUSERS
Cloth 1.2 metres @ Rs.436/- per metre
Rs. 523-00
Stitching charges
Rs. 180-00
3.
SHIRT
Cloth 2.5 metres @ Rs. 232/- per metre
Rs. 580-00
Stitching charges
Rs. 80-00
4.
ORDINARY GOWN
Rs. 800-00
TOTAL :
Rs. 4,635-00
GWALIOR
1.
COAT @ Rs. 474/-
Rs. 948-00
Stitching Charges
Rs. 1,600-00
2.
TROUSERS @ Rs. 474/-
Rs. 569-00
Stitching Charges
Rs. 180-00
3.
SHIRT @ Rs. 115/-
Rs. 288-00
Stitching Charges
Rs. 80-00
4.
ORDINARY GOWN
Rs. 800-00
TOTAL :
Rs. 4,465-00
19.53 It may be mentioned that the stitching charges vary from city to city markedly. However, the normal rate for stitching has been incorporated in the cost-structure. Keeping in view the above, we recommend that a lumpsum amount of Rs. 5,000/- should be paid to every Judicial Officer, once in five years as robe Allowance.
19.54 We are however, not in favour of recommending what may be termed as 'dress maintenance allowance' or 'kit maintenance allowance'. It is expected that those who wear the uniform are required to maintain it properly and neatly.
* * * * *
CONVEYANCE
19.55 The Apex Court in the ALL INDIA JUDGES CASE1 has, inter alia, observed:
"We shall now deal with the claim for transport. In most of the States the District Judge has been provided a motor car and in some of the States the Chief Judicial Magistrate is also provided with such transport, be it a car or jeep. There are still some States like Rajasthan, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh where provision of a car for every district judge has not yet been made. We direct that every District Judge should be provided with a car by March 31, 1992, and it shall be the obligation of the other States where such facility has not been provided to ensure the same within the time limit.
"The chief judicial magistrate is a touring officer apart from doing trial work as a magistrate. Mandate of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires him to undertake some touring. The quality of criminal justice administration would very much depend upon the mobility of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. We, therefore, direct that in such States and Union Territories where provision of independent transport for the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not been made, the same should be done by September, 30, 1992. We are further of the view that in stations with more than four judicial officers a common transport should be provided for the purpose of taking them from the residence to the Court and back and meeting their other official purposes and such vehicle should be placed under the control of the seniormost officer in the pool. The arrangement should be that for every five officers, there should be a vehicle. Provision for this aspect should be made by March 31, 1993. This direction has become necessary as judicial officers should not be forced to travel along with litigants and lawyers. In many sensitive cases, records are carried by them. In some disturbed areas,
________________________________________________________________
1. (1992) 1 SCC 119.
instances of harassment to judicial officers taking advantage of their using common transport have come to light. We direct that every State and Union Territory would file a compliance report in the Registry of this Court in respect of these three aspects within one month from the expiry of the outer limit indicated for each of them.
"There are several outlying Courts where the number of officers would not be more than five. We do not intend to provide any independent transport for them but such officers who ask for loan for purchase of a two wheeler automobile should immediately be provided the same. Appropriate funds should be made available for such purpose. A pool car should have 60 litres of petrol per month and a judicial officer owning a scooter would be entitled to an allowance of Rs.200 per month."
19.56 In the Review Judgment2, the Apex Court modified the aforesaid directions as under:
"It is the principal District Judge at each headquarters or metropolitan towns as the case may be, who will be entitled to an independent vehicle. This will equally apply to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The rest of the Judges and Magistrates will be entitled to pool-vehicles one for every five judges for transport from residence to Court and back - and when needed, to loans for two wheeler automobiles and conveyance allowance. The State Govts / UTs are directed to provide adequate quantity of free petrol for the vehicles not exceeding 100 litres per month in consultation with the High Court".
________________________________________________________________
2. (1993) 4 Sec 288.
19.57 The Commission on a preliminary discussion has received several grievances from the judicial officers and the High Courts. Hence, the Commission formulated the following questions seeking views from the concerned :
Q.No.30 : The Supreme Court has observed that barring District Judges / Chief Judicial Magistrates / Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, the rest of the Judges should be provided with pool vehicles - one vehicle for five Officers. Has this been implemented in your State / UT? Is there any problem or inconvenience in this method of transportation? Opinions and suggestions on this matter are welcome.
Q.No.31 : If a Judicial Officer owns a car, how much petrol allowance may be provided for the use of his car for office purposes?
19.58 Replies received from the High Courts, Service Associations and state Governments are to the following effect :
19.59 All the High Courts have reported that the direction of the Apex Court with regard to provision for conveyance to District Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates including common / pool vehicle has been complied with / implemented. But some have pointed out the following practical difficulties with regard to pool vehicle :
1) The court buildings and residences of the judicial officers are scattered over the length and breadth of the city. For example, in Delhi and Lucknow, Courts are situated at different and distant places and provision of 100 litres petrol per month is inadequate and thus causes practical difficulty in use of pool vehicles.
2) There is enormous wastage of time in collecting and carrying five judges in a trip of the vehicle from residences to the Court houses and back. If a vehicle is to make more than one trip, then some officers have to come too early to the office while others reach late. Similarly, for the return journey in the evening, if an officer is held up in a case for recording of evidence or hearing of lengthy arguments - to accommodate either witnesses or lawyers coming from outstations - then that officer has either to leave the court work incomplete or to make some alternate arrangement because, most of the vehicles start at fixed times without waiting for all of them. Thus, the present arrangement of fixed timings for groups of officers causes not only personal inconvenience but also adversely affects the overall efficiency of courts / judges. In other words, by the use of pool vehicles, no uniformity and punctuality can be maintained amongst the Judicial Officers. Further, some judicial officers work in the chambers even before and after court hours and others finish their work within court hours. If any one is held up (out of five) due to any reason, the other four judicial officers are detained against their will and for no work or the odd judicial officer is left in the court campus without any vehicle to go back to his residence.
3) The pool vehicle system is not convenient to lady Judicial Officers.
4) Pool vehicle system is uneconomical from the angle of the cost of maintenance. It is reported that the approximate monthly expenditure of a vehicle is Rs.15000/- i.e. an approximate expenditure of Rs.3000/-p.m. per officer.
5) Pool vehicle is to carry Judicial Officers from residence to court and back to the residence only. It cannot be used for any emergency like illness of Judicial Officers.
6) The pool car is used not as taxi, but as a black board registered vehicle, it cannot carry more than 4 + 1 persons. It would be contrary to the provisions of law to carry 5 + 1 persons in such cars.
19.60 It is also stated that there is delay in allotting the funds for petrol and maintenance of vehicles by the Government and the vehicles have to remain idle.
19.61 Some High Courts and all the Service Associations prefer soft loans at nominal interest of 6% with appropriate petrol allowance instead of pool vehicle.
19.62 To those who own cars, the High Courts have suggested 75 to 100 litres of petrol per month.
19.63 However, the High Court of Orissa has suggested petrol allowance equivalent of the price of 40 litres of petrol, while High Court of Patna has favoured petrol allowance equivalent of the price of 60 litres.
19.64 All the Service Associations have requested 50 litres to 150 litres of petrol per month for those who own their own cars.
19.65 We have received large number of requests from the First Additional District Judges/First Additional Principal City Civil Court Judges, and Chief Judges, Small Causes Courts that they have got heavy duties and responsibilities and that they have to take over the responsibility of the Principal District Judge whenever the latter is on leave. It appears that the car provided to the Principal District Judge is not made available to them. They have, therefore, requested for independent vehicle.
19.66 First Additional District Judge/First Additional Principal City Civil Court Judges are generally very senior District Judges. We are of opinion that their requests appear to be reasonable.
19.67 There is a large scale complaint that the existing system of providing a pool car for five Officers not only is inconvenient but also contrary to the Motor Vehicle Rules existing in some States. It is also complained that if there is a lady Judicial Officer, it would be difficult for the five Officers to get themselves squeezed into the car. This problem will be more if there is a security guard provided to one of those officers since the Security Guard has to accompany the officer always.
19.68 The Commission has also noticed the recommendations of the 5th C.P.C. with regard to Transport Allowance to Central Government employees.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS:
19.69 Taking these factors into consideration, we recommend as follows:
1. (a) The existing system of providing independent vehicles to every Principal District Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate / Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as directed by the Supreme Court must continue.
(b) Needless to state that the Principal Judge of City Civil Court in every city where City Civil Court has been constituted should be provided an independent vehicle.
(c) The Chief Judges of Small Causes Courts, who are in the cadre of District Judges, should be provided with independent vehicles.
(d) The First Additional District Judge and First Additional/Principal City Civil Court Judge should also be provided with an independent vehicle.
2. Instead of one pool car for five Officers, it should be one pool car for a maximum of four Officers. That does not mean that there shall be no pool car if there is any station with less than 4 Officers. Indeed, if there are less than 4 Officers, it is but necessary to provide them also a pool car.
3. If there is a lady Judicial Officer to be ferried in the pool car, she should be provided the front seat of the car.
4. Since there is a complaint that 100 litres of petrol for pool car is found to be generally inadequate, we recommend 150 litres in Metropolitan cities and outside thereof 125 litres per month.
5. We further recommend that the Judicial Officers may be allowed to utilise the pool car for their personal requirements when it is not on duty for Court purposes, at a rate of Rs.3.50 per K.M. This shall be properly arranged and supervised by the Principal District Judge or Chief Administrative Officer.
1.The Judicial Officer who owns Car be given the following litres of petrol / diesel or equivalent price thereof in the type of city or location as mentioned hereinbelow:
Type of City / Location
Ceiling limit of petrol /diesel (in Litres)
'A' and 'A-1'
75
District Centre
50
The classification of cities on the basis of population criteria adopted by the respective States best suited to their local conditions referred to in the case of CCA be adopted for the purpose of conveyance allowance.
7. The Judicial Officer who owns Scooter be given 25 litres of petrol or equivalent price thereof.
8. The Judicial Officer who owns Car may be given the option to avail of the pool vehicle facility or petrol / diesel as aforesaid.
9. The Judicial Officers may be given liberal soft loans with nominal interest as Motor Car Advance upto a ceiling of Rs.2.5 lakhs with convenient instalments for repayment.
10. As the number of Officers availing the pool vehicle facility decreases the excess number of poor vehicles shall be surrendered to High Court / State Government.
11. The cadre of car drivers should be frozen and surplus drivers, if any, should be redeployed elsewhere and surplus vehicles should also be disposed of.
* * * * *
