Writ Petiton AIJA Supreme Court

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
The Petitioner is seeking review and improvement of the

service conditions of the judicial officers throughout the
country by way of the present petition under Article 32.
The Petitioner in the instant case is All India Judges
Association (AIJA) whose members are judges of the
subordinate judiciary from all over India and was formed
and registered in 1985. The petitioner was formed with the
primary objective of improving the service conditions of
the
judges
in
sub-ordinate
judiciary. Ever
since
its
inception, the AIJA has striven towards achieving its

objective and has approached this Honble Court on
several occasions in the past by filing writ petitions raising
issues of common good and for the benefit of the
subordinate judiciary as a whole. In past, this Honble
Court had directed for constitution of the Honble Justice
Shetty Commission and Honble Justice Padmanabhan
Commission
for
recommending
improvements
in
the
service conditions of judicial officers. These commissions

have favourably shaped the service conditions of all the
judges in sub-ordinate judiciary in compliance with the
directions by this Honble Court. Thus, the efforts of AIJA
are aimed towards the welfare of its members and not of
any particular individual. In this context, it is submitted
that the instant petition is being filed so that the judicial

officers are granted their essential and basic service
conditions.
Article 50 of the Constitution of India incorporates the

concept of separation of judiciary from the executive in the
public services of the State and the distinction between
the two has to be maintained.
Importantly, though the periodic exercise of constituting a

Pay Commission for the executive in public service has
been undertaken by the Central/State Government and
pay scales are being reviewed, no such mechanism has
been put in place for the judicial services despite specific
directions by this Honble Court to this effect. This Honble
Court in All India Judges Association Vs. Union of
India 1992 (1) SCC 119 was pleased to direct that as
and when such Commissions or committees are set up in
the states and Union Territories hereafter, they separately
examine and review pay structure of judicial officers
keeping in view all relevant aspects. (p.199 SCC).
However, these directions by this Honble Court were

sought to be reviewed by the Union of India and the
States. This Honble Court accordingly in All India
Judges Association Vs. Union of India 1993 (4) SCC
288 while disposing off the review petitions, was pleased
to hold that merely because Article 309 of the Constitution
of India gives power to the executive and the legislature to
prescribe the service conditions of the judiciary, and that
after the council of States make the necessary declaration
under Article 312 of the Constitution of India, the
Parliament is empowered to create All India Judicial
Service, it does not mean that the judiciary should have
no say in the matter. It would be against the spirit of the
Constitution to deny any role to the judiciary in that behalf
for theoretically it would not be impossible for the
executive or the legislature to turn and twist the tail of the
judiciary by using the said power. Such a consequence
would be against one of the seminal mandates of the
Constitution namely to maintain the independence of
judiciary and no price is too heavy to secure it. This
Honble Court had then held that it was for this reason
that the practice of entrusting the work of recommending
the service conditions of members of subordinate judiciary
to the same Pay Commission which recommended the

service conditions of the administrative services, required
reconsideration. This Honble Court has ruled in All India
Judges Association v Union of India and ors 1993 4
SCC 288 that the service conditions of the Judicial Officers
should be laid down and reviewed from time to time by an
independent Commission exclusively constituted for the
purpose, and the composition of such Commission should
reflect adequate representation on behalf of the judiciary.
The question with regard to pay scales in respect of the
members of the judicial service had however been initially
referred to the 5th Central Pay Commission. However, in
view of the directions as above, the Govt. of India by a
resolution dated 21/03/1996, constituted the First National
Judicial Pay Commission under the Chairmanship of
Honble Mr. Justice K.J. Shetty, a former Judge of this
Honble Court. Subsequently, by an amendment made on
24/10/1996,
the
reference
to
the
5th
Central
Pay
Commission with regard to the fixation of Pay Scales of

the Judicial Officers was deleted.
The 5th Central Pay Commission submitted its report on

30/01/1997, which was accepted by the government on
30/09/1997 and was made applicable w.e.f. 01/01/1996.

The
First
National
Judicial
Pay
Commission
(Shetty
Commission for short) submitted its report on 11/11/1999

wherein
after
taking
into
consideration
the
recommendations which have been made by the 5th

Central Pay Commission and the pivotal role of the
subordinate judiciary a master pay scale was evolved. The
Shetty Commission came to the conclusion that the
number on the Pay Scale should be equal to the number of
clearly identifiable levels of responsibility also taking into
consideration the scope for promotional avenues. It is a
matter of record that even the recommendations made by
the Shetty Commission have been resisted on one pretext
or the other including the alleged plea of financial burden.
Finally,
this
Honble
Court
in
its
judgment
dated
21/03/2002 vide All India Judges Association Vs.

Union of India 2002 (4) SCC 247 was pleased to accept
the recommendations of the Shetty Commission subject to
certain modifications by this Honble Court. This Honble
Court also directed that the Pay Scale so approved shall be
w.e.f. 01/07/1996.
Though this Honble Court in its review judgment (as

above) had directed that the service conditions of the
Judicial Officers should be laid down and reviewed from
time to time by an independent Commission exclusively
constituted
for
the
purpose,
inspite
of
the
Central
Government constituting the subsequent Pay Commission

namely the 6th Central Pay Commission, no such separate
independent Commission was constituted to review the
service conditions of the subordinate judiciary as directed
by this Honble Court. The Shetty Commission in its report
while arriving at the Pay Scales recommended for the
subordinate judicial service, had noted that while fixing
the maximum of the master pay scale, it had been
constrained by the vertical cap of the salaries of the High
Court Judges. In other words, the district judges could not
get more salary than the High Court Judges, whose
salaries
were
statutorily
fixed.
It
was
however,
recommended that as and when the salaries of High Court

Judges are raised, the salary of the Judicial Officers should
also be increased by maintaining the ratio which the
Shetty Commission had recommended. The salary of the
High Court Judges was revised by the High Court and
Supreme Court Judges (salaries and conditions of service)
Amendment Ordinance, 2009, published in the Gazette of

India vide notification dated 09/01/2009. Subsequently,
this became an Act of the Parliament. Since the Pay Scales
admissible to the subordinate judiciary saw no revision
this Honble Court recognizing that the pay scales required
urgent
upward
revision
and
vide
its
order
dated
28/04/2009 in All India Judges Association Vs. Union

of India 2011 (12) SCC 678, was pleased to appoint
Honble Mr. Justice E. Padmanabhan, Retd. Judge of the
Madras High Court to make suitable recommendations
having regard to the recommendations already made by
the Shetty Commission in respect of the pay scales and
allowances and certain other perquisites of the judicial
officers.
Justice E. Padmanabhan
submitted
his report dated
17/07/2009 and made several determinations on the basis

of the First National Judicial Pay Commission Report
consequent to revision pay scale of the High Court Judges.
The
Commission
however,
recommended
that
its
recommendations be implemented w.e.f. 01/01/2006 i.e.

the date from which the recommendations made by the
6th Central Pay Commission were implemented by the
Central Government. However, the Commission in para

VIII of its Report noted that several demands made by the
Judicial Officers and Pensioners fell outside the scope of
reference made to the Commission. All these demands, as
the report of the Commission would depict, pertained to
the various service conditions of the Judicial Officers but
were not considered by the Commission since these were
found to be beyond the scope of limited reference made to
the Commission. The terms of reference of the said
Padmanabhan Commission were severely restricted on
account of it being limited to determine the pay scale of
judicial officers on the basis of recommendations of the
Shetty Commission. The Honble Commission in para 74 of
its report thus recorded the following:
Since most of the demands so made are

outside the scope of reference made to this
Commission
by
the
Honble
Court,
this
Commission has enumerated those demands,

which
Honble
require
Court
consideration
or
by
either
separate
by
this
Judicial
Pay
Commission or at the appropriate level and they

are given hereunder:
The Commission in Part VIII of its report, has made

reference to at least 56 essential conditions of service
which could not be reviewed by it since they were outside
the scope of reference to the Commission. In Part IX the
Commission recorded the following demands which do not
even cost the exchequer:
i)
Five Days a week.
ii)
Provision for Transit/Guest House facility.
iii)
Issuance of Car stickers for personal cars of

Judicial officers as also for providing red light
atop the vehicles of the particular level of Judicial
Officers.
iv)
Issue of SeniorityRota-Quota.
v)
Separate Forum (State Level and National Level)

for settlement of various administrative and
service grievances/problems.
vi)
Welfare activities for the fraternity in general.
vii)
Advance of salary for meeting contingencies 15
days salary prayed.

viii) Protocol to Distt. Judiciary to be maintained as
per their status as executives.
ix)
Priority
in
reservations/bookings:
alongwith
transportation, quest houses, rest houses etc.

x)
Identity
Cards
to
Pensioners
and
Family
Pensioners to avail medical facilities etc.

xi)
II ACP alongwith fixation of seniority to be

finalized promptly.
xii)
Change of nomenclature of Civil Judge (Junior

Division) to Civil Judge.
Thus, several essential conditions of service of the judicial

officers are left to be addressed till date. It is in view of
these, the Honble Commission too, in Para 75 of its report
has stressed upon the need to have a pay commission for
judicial
officers
to
be
periodically
constituted
simultaneously with the Pay Commission constituted for

the employees of the Central Government. To quote from
the
words
of
the
Commission:
appointment of a Judicial Pay Commission

should normally be made when Central Pay
Commission is constituted and notified.
In exercise of its executive power under Article 73 of the

Constitution of India, the Central Government constitutes
Pay Commissions generally after a gap of every 10 years
for periodic revision of pay scales admissible to Central
Government employees. However, no such mechanism has
been devised for periodic revision of pay and allowances
admissible to the members of the subordinate judiciary
inspite of specific directions by this Honble Court and the
recommendations for such periodic Pay Commission made
by the First National Judicial Pay Commission and the
Padmanabhan Commission as well. It may be noted that
the Central Government has now notified constitution of
the 7th Pay Commission for the Central Government
Employees, but no such exercise has been undertaken to
revise the conditions of service of the members of
subordinate judiciary. Thus, there has been consistent and
patent neglect towards the service conditions of Judicial
Officers despite the repeated directions by this Honble
Court and its anguish there against.
The Petitioner has made several representations to the

respondents
requesting
them
to
review
the
service
conditionsof the judicial officers. The Petitioner made a

representation
to
the
Cabinet
Secretary
of
the
Government of India on 13/5/2015 but representation was

rejected by Government of India on 23/6/2015 on the
ground that the service conditions of the judicial officers of
State Public Judicial are not within the competence of
Central Government and the Honble Supreme Court has
been seized of the matter.
Hence this writ petition is being filed.
The
relevant
events
preceding
the
present
petition,
chronologically, are as under:
13/11/1991
This Honble Court delivered its judgmentin

All India Judges Association v. Union
Of India, 1992 (1) SCC 119(first AIJA
Case for short) issuing
directions for
improvement of the service conditions of
the members of subordinate judiciary. The

directions were as follows:
1. An
All
India
Judicial
Service
should be set up and the Union of

India
should
take
appropriate
steps in this regard.

2. Steps should be taken to bring
about uniformity in designations
of
officers
both
in
civil
and
criminal side by 31/03/1993

3. Retirement age of judicial officers
be
raised
to
60
years
and
appropriate steps are to be taken

by 31/12/1992.
4. As
and
when
the
commission/committees
up
in
the
territories,
States
the
pay
are
and
set
Union
question
of
appropriate pay scales of judicial

officers
be
specifically
referred
and considered.
5. A working library at the residence
of every judicial officer has to be
provided
by
30/06/1992.
Provision for sumptuary allowance

as stated has to be made.
6. Residential
accommodation
to
every judicial officer has to be

provided
and
until
accommodation
government
is
State
available,
should
provide
requisitioned accommodation for

them in the manner indicated by
31/12/1992.
In
residential
accommodation,
availability
of
an
providing
office
room
should be kept in view.

7. Every District Judge and Chief
Judicial Magistrate should have a
State vehicle, judicial officers in
sets of five should have a pool
vehicle
and
others
would
be
entitled
to
suitable
loans
to
acquire two wheeler automobiles

within
different
specified.
time
limits
as
8. In-service institute should be set

up within one year at the Central
and
State
or
Union
territory
level.
24/08/1993
This Honble Court in All India Judges

Association and Ors. Etc. v. Union of
India and Ors etc., - 1993 (4) SCC288
rejected the objections raised by the Union
of India and States while reviewing the
above mentioned judgment in the first AIJA
case and held that:
(i)
Each of the general and special

objections of Union of India and
States/ Union territories was dealt
with and rejected. The distinction
between judicial and other services
specifically emphasized.
(ii)
The service conditions of judicial

officers should be laid down and
reviewed from time to time by an
independent
exclusively
commission
constituted
for
the
purpose, and the composition of

such
commission
should
reflect
adequate representation on behalf

of the judiciary.
(iii) By giving the directions in question,
this Court has only called upon the
Executive and the Legislature to
implement their imperative duties.
The Courts do issue directions to
the authorities to perform their
obligatory duties whenever there is
a failure on their part to discharge
them....
The
further
directions
given, therefore, should not be

looked upon as an encroachment
on the powers of the Executive and
the Legislature to determine the
service conditions of the judiciary.
They are directions to perform the
long overdue obligatory duties
...The directions are essential for the
evolvement of an appropriate national
policy by the Government in regard to
the
judiciary's
conditions".
The
directions issued are mere aids and

incidental to and supplemental of the
main direction and intended as a
transitional
measure
comprehensive
national
till
policy
is
evolved, (Para 6).

(iv) The question of financial burden likely
to be imposed is misconceived and
should not be raised to discharge
mandatory duties:
The contention with regard to the

financial burden likely to be imposed
by the directions in question is equally
misconceived. Firstly, the Courts do
from
time
decisions
to
time
which
hand
have
down
financial
implications and the Government is

obligated
recurrently
to
loosen
its
purse
pursuant
to
such
decisions. Secondly, when the duties

are obligatory, no grievance can be
heard that they cast financial burden.

Thirdly, compared to the other plan
and non-plan expenditure, we find
that the financial burden caused on
account
of
the
said
directions
is
negligible. We should have thought

that such plea was not raised to resist
the
discharge
duties.
The
of
the
contention
mandatory
that
the
resources of all the States are not

uniform has also to be rejected for
the similar reasons. The directions
prescribe
the
minimum
necessary
service conditions and facilities for the

proper administration of justice. We
believe that the quality of justice
administered and the caliber of the
persons appointed to administer it are
not of different grades in different
States. Such contentions are ill-suited
to the issues involved in the present
case.
(v)
The directions
judgment
given
dated
in
the main
13/11/1991
were
maintained except as regards the

following:
a.
The legal practice for of 3 years

should
be
made
essential
one
of
qualifications
the
for
recruitment to the judicial posts

at the lowest rung in the judicial
hierarchy.Further, wherever the
recruitment
of
the
judicial
officers at the lowest rung is

made through the public service
commission, a representative of
the
High
Court
associated
with
should
the
be
selection
process and his advice should

prevail unless there are strong
and
cogent
accepting
should
it,
be
reasons
which
for
not
reasons
recorded
in
writing.The rules for recruitment

of the judicial officers should be
amended
forthwith
to
incorporate the above directions.

b.
The direction with regard to the

enhancement
of
the
superannuation age is modified

as
follows:While
superannuation
age
the
of
every
sub-ordinate judicial officer shall

stand extended upto 60 years,
the
respective
High
Courts
should, as stated above, assess

and evaluate the record of the
judicial officer for his continued
utility well within time before he
attains the age of 58 years by
following the procedure for the
compulsory retirement under the
service rules applicable to him
and give him the benefit of the
extended
superannuation
age
from 58 to 60 years only if he is

found fit and eligible to continue
in service. In case he is not
found fit and eligible, he should

be compulsorily retired on his
attaining the age of 58 years.The
assessment in question should
be done before the attainment of
the age of 58 years even in
cases
where
superannuation
the
age
earlier
was
less
than 58 years.
c.
The
direction
sumptuary
for
granting
allowance
to
the
District Judges and Chief Judicial

Magistrates stands withdrawn for
the reasons given earlier.
d.

grant
of
residence-cum-library
allowance will cease to operate

when
the
respective
Government/Union
administration
start
State
territory
providing
the Courts, as directed above,

with the necessary law books
and journals in consultation with

the respective High Courts.
e.

conveyance to be provided to the
District Judges and that with
regard to the establishment of
the training institutes for the
Judges have been clarified by us
in paragraphs 45(vii) & 49(viii)
respectively. It is the principal
district Judge at each district
headquarter or the metropolitan
town 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
Magistrate.
The
Metropolitan
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, loans for two
wheeler
automobiles
and
conveyance allowance. The State

Governments/Union
territory
administrations are directed to

provide
adequate
quantity
of
free petrol for the vehicles, not

exceeding 100 liters per month,
in consultation with the High
Court.
f.
In view of the establishment of

the national judicial academy, it
is optional for the States to have
their
independent
or
joint
training judicial institutes.

g.
In view of the time taken to

dispose of the review petitions,
following orders were passed:the
time to comply with the direction
for bringing about uniformity in
hierarchy,
designations
and
jurisdictions of judicial officers on

both civil and criminal sides is
extended upto 31/03/1994;the
time
to
comply
with
the
directions to provide law books

and law journals to all Courts is
extended
failing
upto
which,
allowance
should
31/12/1993
the
be
library
paid
to
every judicial officer with effect

from 01/01/1994, if it is not paid
already;the
suitable
time
to
provide
residential
accommodation, requisitioned of
Government, to every judicial
officer
is
extended
upto
31/03/1994;the time to comply

with the rest of the directions is
maintained as it was directed by
the judgment under review;
h.
Regarding uniform pay scales,

the review judgment emphasized
the following:We have already
discussed the need to make a
distinction between the political
and the administrative executive
and to appreciate that parity in

status
can
Judges
only
and
executive
be
between
the
political
not
between
and
Judges and the administrative

executive.
Hence,
the
earlier
approach of comparison between

the
service
Judges
conditions
and
those
of
of
the
the
administrative executive has to

be abandoned and the service
conditions of the Judges which
are wrongly linked to those of
the
administrative
executive
have to be revised to meet the

special
needs
of
the
judicial
service. Further, since the work

of the judicial officers throughout
the country is of the similar
nature, the service conditions
have to be uniform. We have
also
emphasized
earlier
the
necessity of entrusting the work
of
prescribing
the
service
conditions for the judicial officers

to a separate pay commission
exclusively
set
up
for
the
purpose. Hence, we reiterate the

importance
of
commission
and
desirability
such
separate
also
of
of
the
prescribing
uniform pay scales to the Judges

all over the country. Since such
pay scales will be the minimum
deserved by the judicial officers,
the argument that some of the
States may not be able to bear
the financial burden is irrelevant.
The uniform service conditions
as and when laid down would
not, of course, affect any special
or extra benefits which some
States may be bestowing upon
their judicial officers.
24/10/1996
First National Judicial Pay Commission was

constituted by the Government of India
pursuant to the directions issued by this

Court
in
Second
AIJA
Case.
The
Commission was headed by Honble Mr.

Justice K.J. Shetty. The terms of reference
were as follows:
A. To evolve the principles that would
govern the structure of pay and other
emoluments
of
judicial
officers
belonging to the subordinate judiciary

all over the country.
B. To examine the present structure of

emoluments and conditions of service
of judicial officers in the states/UTs
taking into account the total packet of
benefits available to them and make
suitable
recommendations
having
regard, among other relevant factors,

to the existing relativities in the pay
structure
between
belonging
to
the
subordinate
officers
judicial
service visa-vis other civil servants.
C. To examine and recommend in respect

of
minimum
qualifications,
age
of
recruitment, method of recruitment,

etc.,
for
judicial
officers.
In
this
context, the relevant provisions of the

constitution
and
directions
of
the
Supreme Court in All India Judges

Association case and other cases may
be kept in view.
D. To examine the work methods and

work environment as also the variety
of allowances and benefits in kind that
are available to judicial officers in
addition
to
rationalization
pay
and
and
to
suggest
simplification
thereof with a view to promoting

efficiency in judicial administration,
optimizing the size of the judiciary
etc."
11/11/1999
Honble
Mr. Justice
Shetty
Commission
submitted its report with the following

recommendations:
1. The High Courts were required to

frame the rules specifying particular
age of retirement and it was also
recommended that the procedure
prescribed
for
writing
the
confidential reports by the selfassessment process was better and

more transparent and should be
adopted by the High Courts for
judicial officers.
2. The
commission
recommended
appropriate nomenclatures to be
given to the judicial officers. The
recommendation
was
that
they
should be called "civil judge" in

place
of
"civil
judge
(junior
division)" and "senior civil judge" in
place
of
"civil
judge
(senior
division)".
3. It
further
gave
recommendation
with regard to equation of posts of

the chief metropolitan magistrate
and chief judicial magistrate. While
it
recommended
that
the
chief
judicial magistrate should be in the

cadre
of
division),
civil
in
judge
respect
metropolitan
(senior
of
chief
magistrate,
it
recommended that it should be

placed in the cadre of district judge.
According to the learned amicus
curiae,
the
magistrate
chief
and
metropolitan
chief
judicial
magistrate must be in the same

cadre
equivalent
to
civil
judge
(senior division) and that it should

be at par with each other.
4. Recommendations were made with

regard to recruitment to the cadre
of civil judge (junior division)-cummagistrate first class as well as
recruitment to the post of civil
judge
(senior
division).
The
recommendation in this regard was

that the posts of civil judge (senior
division) should only be filled by
promotion.
5. The
commission
recommendation
also
with
made
regard
to
appointment to the post of district

judge which includes the additional
district judge in the higher judicial
service.
It
pointed
out
some
problems which had arisen as a

result of direct recruitment to the
post of district judges, the problem
really being with regard to the inter
se seniority amongst them.
6. The commission also recommended

that
serving
judges
who
were
between 35 and 45 of age should

be
made
eligible
for
direct
recruitment to the higher judicial

service which consists of the posts
of district judges and additional
district judges and for this purpose,
if necessary, there should be an
amendment to Article 233(2) of the
Constitution of India.
7. With regard to inter se seniority

between
promotees,
direct
the
recruits
and
commission
recommended that the promotees

be given weightage of one year for
every five years of judicial service
rendered by them subject to a
maximum of three years.
8.
The
steps
report
also
recommended
being
taken
for
judicial
education and training.
14/12/1999
This Honble Court passed an order in the

first
AIJA
case
directing
the
State
Governments and the Union Territories to

send their responses to the Union of India
so that it could co-relate the responses and
indicate
its
own
stand
on
the
recommendations of Honble Mr. Justice

Shetty Commission.
08/02/2002
This Honble Court passed a Judgment and

order in All India Judges Association
and Ors. v. Union of India, 2002 (4)
SCC
247(third
AIJA
case)
issuing
directions in the Writ Petition filed on behalf

of the Petitioner for review of the working
conditions of the members of the Sub
ordinate Judiciary throughout the country.
While passing the above mentioned order
this Honble Court rejected the contention
raised by the Respondents therein about

the Financial Burden
Government
to
and directed the
implement
recommendations
of
with
Justice
the
Shetty
Commission in the case of. The relevant

extract of the above mentioned judgment
is as follows:
1. Honble
Mr.
Commission
Justice
has
Shetty
taken
into
consideration the recommendations

of fifth central pay commission and
the pay scales recommended by it
are
just
and
reasonable.
Considering the years of service put

in
by
the
judicial
officers
at
different stages, the parity in the

scales of pay recommended by the
commission for the judicial officers
with the scales of pay of the I.A.S.
Officers
is
not
by
disturbed. (Para 19)
and
large
2. However the entire expenditure on

account of the recommendation of
the Justice Shetty Commission be
borne
by
the
respective
states.
(Para 22)
3. Existing
vacancies
in
the
sub-
ordinate courts at all levels should

be filed. There has to be certain
minimum
standards,
objectively
adjudged for officers who are to

enter the higher judicial service as
additional
district
district
judges.
appointment
judges
Ratio
by
of
promotion
and
75%
and
25% by direct recruitment to the

higher
judicial
service
maintained.
As
far
as
appointment
by
promotion
is
the
is
concerned 50% must be filled by

promotion on the basis of principle
of merit-cum-seniority and passing
a suitable test and 25% by strictly
on
the
basis
of
merit
through
limited competitive examination of

civil judges(senior division) having
not less than 5 years of qualifying
service.(Para 26)
4. Recommendations for increase in
retirement age from 60 to 62 years
not acceptable. (Para 25)
5. Judicial
officers
provided
with
official accommodation will not be

entitled to house rent allowances.
50% of the electricity and water
charges of the residence of judicial
officers to be borne by the State
Government.
graduates
Even
without
fresh
any
law
practice
should be eligible to enter judicial

service provided training of one or
two
years.
Chief
judicial
magistrates and chief metropolitan

magistrates equated and placed in
the cadre of senior division subjudge. Revised pay scales to be
paid w.e.f. 01.07.1996. (Para 34)
This Honble Court further noted in this

decision that
The Govt. of India has erred in
equating the district judge at the
entry with the scales of pay of a
Selection Grade IAS Officer. The
proper equation should have been
between the District Judge at entry
Level with a super time scale of an
IAS Officer; it is on that basis that
the
scale
determined
of
pay
should
upwards
be
and
downwards.
It was also observed by the Court that

It is only the District Judge (Super
Time Scale) as recommended by
the
Justice
Shetty
commission
which is comparable with the last

scale of an IAS Officer.
28/04/2009
Honble
Mr.
Justice
E.
Padmanabhan
Commission was appointed by the Order of

this Honble Court in the third AIJA case to
determine the pay scales of all the Judicial
Officers etc. throughout the country on the
basis
of
Justice
Shetty
Commissions
Report. This Commission was directed to

determine
scales
of
pay,
allowances,
perquisites etc. of Judicial Officers in the

cadre of (i) Civil Judges (Junior Division),
(ii) Civil Judges (Senior Division), (iii)
District Judges (Entry Grade), (iv) District
Judges (Selection Grade) and (v) District
Judges (Super Time Scale) having regard
to the recommendations already made by
the Honble Justice Shetty Commission in
respect of the pay scales, allowances and
other perquisites of the Judicial Officers,
and so also revised Pensionary benefits
payable to Judicial Pensioners.
17/07/2009
Justice
submitted
Padmanabhan
its
report.
Committee
However, various
demands made by the Judicial Officers

Association were not considered by the
Committee as they were beyond its scope.
The Committee vide paragraph 73 and 74
enumerated the areas to be reviewed by
Separate Judicial Pay Commission.
The Petitioners most respectfully submit

that since then there has been no review of
the service conditions of the subordinate
judiciary even when there has been a
periodic review in respect of administrative
services. Thus, even after three rounds of
litigations and two commissions spanning
across two decades that have brought
certain widespread changes in the working
conditions of the subordinate judiciary in
India,
there
between
conditions
the
of
still
remains
treatment
the
disparity
of
working
subordinate
judicial
services and other administrative services,

in terms of monetary benefit as well as
social
security. It
is
most
respectfully
submitted that the pivotal reason for this

uncertainty is lack of a permanent body
that can regulate the service conditions of
the subordinate judiciary.
28/02/2014
7th Pay Commission was constituted. The

terms of reference of the said Commission
are as follows:
To
examine,
evolve
and
changes
that
are
recommend
review,
desirable and feasible regarding the

principles
that
should
govern
the
emoluments structure including pay

allowances
and
other
facilities/benefits, in cash or kind,

having regard to rationalization and
simplification therein as well as the
specialized
needs
of
various
Departments, agencies and services,

in respect of the following categories
of employees: -
i. Central Government employees

industrial and non-industrial;
ii. Personnel belonging to the All
India Services:
iii. Personnel
of
the
Union
Territories;
iv. Officers and employees of the
Indian
Audit
and
Accounts
Department;
v. Members of the regulatory bodies
(excluding the RBI) set up under
the acts of Parliament; and
vi. Officers and employees of the
Supreme Court
It is thus evident that the scope of 7 th Pay

Commission does not extend to the SubOrdinate Judiciary. Thus while it would
bring about better pay scales to the
Indian Administrative Officers there would
be
no
improvement
conditions
of
the
in
the
members
service
of
the
subordinate judiciary. This is violative of

the principles of equality and fundamental
rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16
07/07/2014
20th Law Commission submitted the 245th

report
on
arrears
and
backlogs
recommending increase in the retirement

age of the judges of subordinate judiciary
from 60 to 62.
13/05/2015
Petitioner submitted a representation to

the Cabinet Secretary of the Government
of India to constitute an All India Judicial
Commission
conditions
to
of
the
review
judicial
the
service
officers
of
District Judiciary in India..

23/06/2015
The abovementioned representation was

rejected by Government of India on the
ground that service conditions of the
judicial officers of State Public Judicial is
not within the competence of Central
Government and the Honble Supreme
Court has been seized of the matter.
In these circumstances the Petitioners are

constrained to file this present petition
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF
1. All India Judges Association
Through its Working President
Having address at:
37 Upkar Society, Harinagar,
Gotri Road,
Vadodara 390007
Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Notice through,
Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice,
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
Respondent No.1
2. The Registrar General,
High Court of Allahabad,
Allahabad, U.P. 211001
Respondent No.2

High Court of Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.
Respondent No.3

High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad 500266
Respondent No.4
High Court of Bombay,
Mumbai 400032
Respondent No.5
6. The Registrar,
High Court of Bombay,
Goa (Panaji) Bench,
Goa 403 001
Respondent No.6

High Court of Calcutta,
Kolkata 700001
Respondent No.7

High Court of Calcutta,
Circuit Bench at Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Port Blair 744101
Respondent No.8
High Court of Chattisgarh,
Bilaspur 795001
Respondent No.9

High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi 110003
Respondent No.10

High Court of Guwahati,
Guwahati 781001
Respondent No.11
12. The Registrar,

High Court of Guwahati
Imphal Bench, Imphal.
Respondent No.12

Kohima Bench, Kohima.
Respondent No.13

Agartala Bench, Agartala.
Respondent No.14

Aizwal Bench, Aizwal.
Respondent No.15

Shillong Bench, Shillong.
Respondent No.16

Itanagar bench, Itanagar.
Respondent No.17

High Court of Gujarat,
Ahmedbad.
Respondent No.18
High Court of Himachal Pradesh,

Shimla 171001
Respondent No.19
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir,
Srinagar 190001
Respondent No.20
High Court of Jharkhand,
Ranchi 834033
Respondent No.21

High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore 560001
Respondent No.22

High Court of Kerala,
Ernakulam (Kochi) 682031
Respondent No.23

High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600104
Respondent No.24

High Court of Madras
Madurai Bench, Madurai.
Respondent No.25

High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Jabalpur 482001
Respondent No.26
High Court of Orissa,
Cuttak 753002
Respondent No.27

High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Chandigarh 160001
Respondent No.28
High Court of Rajasthan,
Jodhpur 342001
Respondent No.29

High Court of Sikkim,
Gangtok.
Respondent No.30

High Court of Uttarakhand,
Nainital.
Respondent No.31
32. State of Andhra Pradesh

Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Hyderabad 500022Respondent No.32
33. State of Arunanchal Pradesh
Notice through
Secretariat, Itanagar 791111. Respondent No.33
34. State of Assam
Notice through
Secretariat, Dispur,
Guwahati 781006
Respondent No.34
35. State of Bihar

Notice through
Secretariat, Patna.
Respondent No.35
36. State of Chattisgarh

Notice through
Secretariat,
Raipur 492001
Respondent No.36
37. State of Goa

Notice through
Secretariat, Porvorim Goa
Respondent No.37
38. State of Gujarat,

Notice through
Sachivalaya,
Gandhinagar 382010
Respondent No.38
39. State of Haryana

Notice through
Haryana Civil Secretariat,
Sector 01, Chandigarh-160001 Respondent No.39

40. State of Himachal Pradesh
Notice through
Secretariat, Shimla 171002
Respondent No.40

Notice through
Secretariat, Srinagar
Jammu and Kashmir
Respondent No.41

Notice through
Secretariat, Dhurwa,
Ranchi 834001
Respondent No.42
43. State of Karnataka

Notice through
Bangalore 560001
Respondent No.43
44. State of Kerala

Notice through
Government Secretariat,
Thiruvananthapuram 695001 Respondent No.44
45. State of Madhya Pradesh
Notice through
Secretariat,
Bhopal 462004
Respondent No.45
46. State of Maharashtra

Notice through
Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400032
Respondent No.46
47. State of Manipur,

Notice through
Secretariat, Imphal
Manipur 795001
Respondent No.47
48. State of Meghalaya

Notice through
Main Secretariat, Shillong
Meghalaya 793001
Respondent No.48
49. State of Mizoram

Notice through
Secretariat, Capital Complex,
Khatla, Aizawl 796001
Respondent No.49
50. State of Nagaland

Notice through
New Secretariat Complex,
Kohima 797004
Respondent No.50
51. State of Odisha

Notice through
Secretariat, Odisha 751 013
Respondent No.51
52. State of Punjab

Notice through
Civil Secretariat, Sector 9
Chandigarh
Respondent No.52
53. State of Rajashtan

Notice through
Secretariat, Jaipur 302005
Respondent
No.53
54. State of Sikkim

Notice through
Tashiling Secretariat,
Gangtok 737101
Respondent
No.54
55. State of Tamil Nadu

Notice through
Secretariat, Chennai 600009 Respondent No.55

56. State of Telangana
Notice through
Secretariat
Respondent No.56
57. State of Tripura

Notice through
New Secretariat Building,
Capital Complex,
Agartala 799006
Respondent No.57
58. State of Uttar Pradesh

Notice through
Secretariat, Lucknow 226001 Respondent No.58
59. State of Uttarakhand
Notice through
Secretariat, Subash Road,
Dehradun 248001
Respondent No.59
60. State of West Bengal

Notice through
Advantage Bengal Building, 700016 Respondent
No.60
61. Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar
Notice through
Secretariat, Port Blair 744101 Respondent No.61
62. Union Territory of Chandigarh
Notice through
Territory Secretariat, Sector 9
Chandigarh
Respondent No.62
63. Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli
Notice through
Secretariat, Silvassa 396230 Respondent No.63
64. Union Territory of Daman & Diu

Notice through
Secretariat, Fort Area,
Moti Daman, Daman 396220 Respondent No.64
65. Union Territory of Delhi
Notice through
Secretariat, New Delhi 110113 Respondent No.65
66. Union Territory of Lakshwadeep
Notice through
Secretariat, Kavaratti 682555 Respondent No.66
67. Union Territory of Puducherry
Notice through
Secretariat, 605 001
PETITION
UNDER
Respondent No.67
ARTICLE
32
OF
THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A

WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY
OTHER
APPROPRIATE
DIRECTIONS
UNDER
WRIT
ARTICLE
ORDERS
32OF
THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
To
HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
LORDSHIPS
COMPANION
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
JUSTICES
OF
THE
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE

NAMED.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. The Petitioner in the instant case is the All India
Judges Association whose members are judges of the
subordinate judiciary from all over India and was
formed and registered in 1985. The petitioner was
formed with the primary objective of improving the
service conditions of the judges in sub ordinate
judiciary. Ever since its inception, the AIJA has
striven towards achieving its objective and has
approached this Honble Court on several occasions in
the past by filing writ petition raising issues of
common good and for the benefit of the subordinate
judiciary as a whole. Resultantly, this Honble Court
had directed for constitution of the Honble Justice
Shetty Commission and Honble Justice Padmanabhan
Commission for recommending improvements in the
service
conditions
of
judicial
officers.
These
commissions have favourably shaped the service

conditions of all the judges in sub ordinate judiciaryin
compliance with the directions by this Honble Court.
Thus, the efforts of AIJA are aimed towards the
welfare of its members and not of any particular

individual. In this context, it is submitted that the
instant petition is being filed so that the judicial
officers are granted their essential and basic service
conditions.
1A. That the petitioner has authorised Sh. Devendra
Kumar Jangala who is presently posted as Additional
District Judge Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and who is also
Honorary Secretary (Zonal) of the Petitioner to file
the present petition. The petitioner before filing the
present had made a representation to the Cabinet
Secretary, Government of India on 13/05/205 (which
is on record as Annexure:P-10). However the the
abovementioned
representation
was
rejected
by
letter dated 23/06/2015 (which is on record as

Annexure:P-11) on the ground that the conditions of
service of judicial officers of State Public Judiciary is
not within the competence of the Central Government
and that the Honble Supreme Court has been seized
of the matter.
2. That
Article
50
of
the
Constitution
of
India
incorporates the concept of separation of judiciary

from the executive in the public services of the State
and the distinction
between
the two hasto be
maintained.
3. Importantly,
though
the
periodic
exercise
of
constituting a Pay Commission for the executive in

public
service
has
been
undertaken
by
the
Central/State Government and pay scales are being

reviewed, no such mechanism has been put in place
for the judicial services despite specific directions by
the Honble Court to this effect. This Honble Court in
All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India
1992 (1) SCC 119 was pleased to direct that as
and when such Commissions or committees are set
up in the states and Union Territories hereafter, they
separately examine and review pay structure of
judicial
officers
keeping
in
view
all
relevant
aspects.(p.199 SCC).
4. However, these directions by this Honble Court were

sought to be reviewed by the Union of India and the
States. This Honble Court accordingly in All India
Judges Association Vs. Union of India 1993 (4)
SCC 288 while disposing off the review petitions, was
pleased to hold that merely because Article 309 of
the Constitution of India gives power to the executive

and the legislature to prescribe the service conditions
of the judiciary, and that after the council of States
make the necessary declaration under Article 312 of
the
Constitution
of
India,
the
Parliament
is
empowered to create All India Judicial Service, it

does not mean that the judiciary should have no say
in the matter. It would be against the spirit of the
Constitution to deny any role to the judiciary in that
behalf for theoretically it would not be impossible for
the executive or the legislature to turn and twist the
tail of the judiciary by using the said power. Such a
consequence would be against one of the seminal
mandates of the Constitution, namely to maintain
independence of the judiciary and no price is too
heavy to secure it. This Honble Court had then held
that it was for this reason that the practice of
entrusting the work of recommending the service
conditions of members of subordinate judiciary to the
same
Pay
Commission
which
recommended
the
service conditions of the other services required

reconsideration. This Honble Court has ruled that the
service conditions of the Judicial Officers should be
laid down and reviewed from time to time by an

independent Commission exclusively constituted for
the
purpose,
and
the
composition
of
such
Commission should reflect adequate representation

on behalf of the judiciary. The question with regard to
pay scales in respect of the members of the judicial
service had however been initially referred to the 5 th
Central Pay Commission. However, in view of the
directions as above, the Govt. of India by a resolution
dated 21/03/1996, constituted the First National
Judicial pay Commission under the Chairmanship of
Honble Mr. Justice K. J. Shetty, a former Judge of
this Honble Court. Subsequently, by an amendment
made on 24/10/1996, the reference to the 5 th Central
Pay Commission with regard to the fixation of Pay
Scales of the Judicial Officers was deleted.
5. That the 5th Central Pay Commission submitted its

report on 30/01/1997, which was accepted by the
government on 30/09/1997 and was made applicable
w.e.f. 01/01/1996. The First National Judicial Pay
Commission
(Shetty
Commission
for
short)submitted its report on 11/11/1999 wherein
after taking into consideration the recommendations

which
have
been
made
by
the
5thCentral
Pay
Commission and the pivotal role of the subordinate

judiciary a master pay scale was evolved. The Shetty
Commission came to the conclusion that the number
of pay Scale should be equal to the number of clearly
identifiable levels of responsibility also taking into
consideration the scope for promotional avenues. It is
a matter of record that even the recommendations
made by the Shetty Commission have been resisted
on one pretext or the other including the alleged plea
of financial burden. Finally, this Honble Court in its
judgment dated 21/03/2002 vide All India Judges
Association Vs. Union of India 2002 (4) SCC
247 was pleased to accept the recommendations of
the
Shetty
Commission
subject
to
certain
modifications by this Honble Court. This Honble

Court also directed that the Pay Scale so approved
shall be w.e.f. 01/07/1996.
6. That though this Honble Court in its review judgment

(as above) had directed that the service conditions of
the
Judicial
Officers
should
be
laid
down
and
reviewed from time to time by an independent

Commission exclusively constituted for the purpose,
inspite of the Central Government constituting the
subsequent Pay Commission namely the 6 th Central
Pay Commission, no such separate independent
Commission was constituted to review the service
conditions of the subordinate judiciary as directed by
this Honble Court. The Shetty Commission in its
report while arriving at the Pay Scales recommended
for the subordinate judicial service, had noted that
while fixing the maximum of the master pay scale, it
had been constraint by the vertical cap of the salaries
of the High Court Judges. In other words, the district
judges could not get more salary than the High Court
Judges, whose salaries were statutorily fixed. It was
however, recommended that as and when the salaries
of High Court Judges were raised, the salary of the
Judicial
Officers
should
also
be
increased
by
maintaining the ratio which the Shetty Commission

had recommended. The salary of the High Court
Judges was revised by the High Court and Supreme
Court Judges (salaries and conditions of service)
Amendment
Ordinance,
2009,
published
in
the
Gazette of India vide notification dated 09/01/2009.

Subsequently, this became an Act of the Parliament.
Since the Pay Scales admissible to the subordinate
judiciary saw no revision, this Honble Court vide
order
dated
28/04/2009
in
All
India
Judges
Association Vs. Union of India 2011 (12) SCC

678 was pleased to appoint Honble Mr. Justice E.
Padmanabhan, Retd. Judge of the Madras High Court
to make suitable recommendations having regard to
the recommendations already made by the Shetty
Commission
in
respect
of
the
pay
scales
and
allowances and certain other perquisites of the

judicial officers.
7. That Justice E. Padmanabhan submitted his report

dated 17.07.2009and made several determinations
on the basis of the First National Judicial Pay
Commission Report consequent to revision of scale of
pay of the High Court Judges. The Commission
however, recommended that its recommendations be
implemented w.e.f. 01/01/2006 i.e. the date from
which the recommendations made by the 6 thCentral
Pay Commission were implemented by the Central
Government. However, the Commission in para VIII

of its Report noted that several demands made by
the Judicial Officers and Pensioners fell outside the
scope of reference made to the Commission. All these
demands, as the report of the Commission would
depict, pertained to the various service conditions of
the Judicial Officers, but were not considered by the
Commission since these were found to be beyond the
scope of limited reference made to the Commission.
The terms of reference of the said Padmanabhan
Commission were severely restricted on account of it
being limited to determine the pay scale of judicial
officers on the basis of recommendations of the
Shetty Commission. The Honble Commission in para
74 of its report thus, recorded the following:
Since most of the demands so made are
outside the scope of reference made to this
Commission
by
the
Honble
Court,
this
Commission has enumerated those demands,

which
Honble
require
consideration
Court or
by
either
separate
by
this
Judicial
Pay
Commission or at the appropriate level and they

are given hereunder:
8. The Commission in Part VIII of its report, has made

reference to at least 56 essential conditions of service
which could not be reviewed by it since they were
outside the scope of reference to the Commission. In
Part IX the Commission recorded the following
demands which do not even cost the exchequer.
i)
Five Days a week.
ii)
Provision for Transit/Guest House facility.
iii)
Issuance of Car stickers for personal cars of

Judicial officers as also for providing red light
atop the vehicles of the particular level of Judicial
Officers.
iv)
Issue of SeniorityRota-Quota.
v)
Separate Forum (State Level and National Level)

for settlement of various administrative and
service grievances/problems.
vi)
Welfare activities for the fraternity in general.
vii)
Advance of salary for meeting contingencies 15

days salary prayed.
viii) Protocol to Distt. Judiciary to be maintained as

per their status as executives.
ix)
Priority in reservations/bookings: alongwith

transportation, quest houses, rest houses etc.
x)
Identity Cards to Pensioners and

Pensioners to avail medical facilities etc.
xi)
II ACP alongwith fixation of seniority to be

finalized promptly.
Family
xii)
Change of nomenclature of Civil Judge (Junior

Division) to Civil Judge.
9. Thus, several essential conditions of service of the

judicial officers are left to be addressed till date. It is
in view of these, the Honble Commission too, in Para
75 of its report has stressed upon the need to have a
pay commission periodically constituted for judicial
officers simultaneously with the Pay Commission
constituted
for
Government.
the
employees
To quote
from
the
of
the
words
Central
of
the
Commission:
appointment of a Judicial Pay Commission
should normally be made when Central Pay
Commission is constituted and notified.
10.
That in exercise of its executive power under
Article 73 of the Constitution of India, the Central

Government constitutes Pay Commissions generally
after a gap of every 10 years for periodic revision of
pay
scales
admissible
to
Central
Government
employees. However, no such mechanism has been

devised for periodic revision of pay and allowances
admissible
to
the
members
of
the
subordinate
judiciary inspite of specific directions by this Honble
Court and the recommendations for such periodic Pay

Commission made by the First National Judicial Pay
Commission and the Padmanabhan Commission as
well. It may be noted that the Central Government
has
now
notified
constitution
of
the
7th
Pay
Commission for the Central Government Employees,

but no such exercise has been undertaken to revise
the
conditions
of
service
of
the
members
of
subordinate judiciary.
11. That in view of the above, the Petitioner prefers the
present
petition
to
seek
uniform
review
and
improvement of the service conditions of the judicial

officers throughout the country. The Petitioner seeks
constitution of a commission to review the service
conditions of the members of the district judiciary,
including the following but not restricted to:
i.
Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending

changes/modification
of
emoluments
structure
including but not restricted to pay, allowances

including
inter
alia
residential
allowance,
conveyance
traveling
allowance,
allowance
and
library allowance, and other facilities/benefits, in

cash or kind, having regard to rationalization,
,uniformity and simplification therein as well as the

specialized needs of district judiciary in India with
due emphasis on aspects unique to the judges of
the district courts in India;
ii.

changes to bring uniformity in the pay scales of
District judges in India
iii.
Examining the principles governing the structure of

pension and other retirement benefits, including
revision of pension in the case of subordinate court
judges including those who have retired prior to
the date of the effect of the recommendation of
the proposed Commission.
iv.

changes/modification, including but not restricted
to the principle of parity,of the benefit of pension
and other retirement benefits to judges appointed
after
31/12/2003
at
various
levels
of district
judiciary in India as per the pension scheme

approved by this Honble Court which is payable to
judges appointed up to 31/12/2003, as against the

New Pension Scheme (NPS) implemented by the
government.
v.
Increasing the age of retirement of District judges

in India;
vi.

the principle and roadmap for creation of All India
Judicial Services;
vii.
Developing a framework for emoluments structure

linked with the need to attract the most suitable
talent to judicial service at various levels of district
judiciary in India and promoting efficiency,with due
regard to expectations of stakeholders, and to
recommend
appropriate
training
and
capacity
building through a competency based framework;
viii.

the principle and roadmap for creation of more
posts
periodically
to
meet
the
increasing
requirement and improve the judicial infrastructure

available to the lower judiciary;
ix.

changes to
correct
the
anomaly
in
the
increments/allowances of judges from different

cadres;
x.
Examining and removing any anomalies of the First

National Judicial Pay Commission as well of J.
Padmanabhan Committee report;
xi.

various
measures,including
preventive
measures, to ensure safety and security to district

judiciary in India so as to ensure that the judges
are
able
to
discharge their
judicial
duties
fearlessly;
xii.
Examining, rationalising and recommending the

ratio of vacancies for appointment as judges of
High Courts from amongst the members of the bar
and
the
judicial
officers
to
ensure
fair
representation to the judicial officers from the

State Judicial Services and further the judicial
officers who join the State Judicial Services at the
entry level be also given due representation in the
High Courts and at the higher levels of the
judiciary;
xiii.
Examining,
principles
permanent
periodically
evolving
and
roadmap
review
to
recommending
for
independent
and emoluments
restricted
and
the
pay,
service
cash
or
a
to
conditions
including
allowances
in
of
commission/body
structure
facilities/benefits,
constitution
the
but
and
not
other
kind, and the
principles that should govern the District Judiciary

in India;
xiv.
Examining, evolving and recommending principles

and roadmap for better promotional opportunities
for Judicial officers from State Judicial Service
particularly promotion in Higher Judicial Service
and
representation
in
High
Court
and
Apex
Court,including periodic review of the Rules of
Recruitment and Promotion that should govern the

district judiciary.
12. It is submitted that the only efficacious remedy

available with the petitioner on account of violation of
Petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 16 is by way of the present petition
under Article 32.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are

as follows:
a. That in 1989 a petition under Article 32 was filed
by the All India judges, Association and its
working President for reliefs through directions
for the setting up of an All India Judicial Service
and for bringing about uniformity and improving
conditions
of
service
of
members
of
the
subordinate judiciary throughout the country.

The said writ petition was disposed in the case
of All India Judges Association v. Union of
India
and
Ors.
1992
(1)
SCC
119
(hereinafter referred as first AIJA case), giving
significant directions in respect of enhanced pay

scales, enhancement and uniformity in age of
retirement and additional allowances, while also
recognizing the dire conditions of service of the
True copy of the judgment of the Honble
Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v.
Union of India and Ors. 1992 (1) SCC 119 is
marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P1(Pages ___ to ____)
b. That in 1993 the Union of India filed a review
petition pursuant to first AIJA case, seeking
certain modifications/clarifications. This review
petition was disposed of by the judgment,
entitled All India Judges Association and Ors.
Etc. v. Union of India and Ors etc., - 1993 (4)
SCC 288 (hereinafter referred as second AIJA
case). The Court reasserted its views of the
first AIJA case and held in this case that the
parity
should be
maintained between
the
political executive, the legislators and the

Judges and not between the Judges and the
administrative executive.

Supreme Court in All India Judges Association
v. Union of India and Ors. 1993 (4) SCC 288
is marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE
P-2 (Pages ___ to ____)
c. That in 1996 pursuant to the directions issued
by this Court in the second AIJA case, the
Government
of
India
by
resolution
constituted the First National Judicial Pay

Commission under the chairmanship of Mr.
Justice K.J. Shetty (hereinafter referred as
Honble Mr. Justice Shetty Commission) and in
the year 1999 the said commission submitted
its report with recommendations.
True copy of the relevant extracts of Honble
Mr.
Justice
Shetty
Commission
report
is
marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P3 (Pages ___ to ____)
d. In the case of All India Judges Association and

Ors.
v.
dUnion
of
India,
2002
(4)
SCC
247(hereinafter referred as third AIJA case) this

Honble
Court
rejected
the
contention
of
Financial
Burden
Government
and
to
directed
comply
the
with
the
recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission.

Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v.
Union of India and Ors. 2002 (4) SCC 247 is
marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-4
(Pages ___ to ____)
e. In
March
2008
the
6th
Central
Pay
Scale
Commission submitted its report revising the

pay
scale of
the executive
branch
of
the
government.
True copy of the relevant extracts of 6th Central
Pay Scale Commission report is marked and
annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-5
(Pages
___ to ____)
f. That
on
appointed
28/04/2009
the
this
Honble
Honble
Mr.
Court
Justice
E.
Padmanabhan Commission to determine the pay

scales of all the Judicial Officers etc. throughout
the country on the basis of the Honble Mr.
Justice Shetty Commissions Report.
True copy of the order of the Honble Supreme

Court dated 28/04/2009 is marked and annexed
hereto as ANNEXURE P-6 (Pages ___ to ____)
g. That the Honble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan
Commission was directed to determine scales of
pay, allowances, perquisites etc. of Judicial
Officers in the cadre of (i) Civil Judges (Junior
Division), (ii) Civil Judges (Senior Division), (iii)
District
Judges
(Entry
Grade),
(iv)
District
Judges (Selection Grade) and (v) District Judges

(Super
Time
Scale)
having
regard
to
the
recommendations already made by the Honble

Justice Shetty Commission in respect of the pay
scales, allowances and other perquisites of the
Judicial Officers, and so also revised Pensionary
benefits payable to Judicial Pensioners.
h. That in 2009 Honble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan

Committee
submitted
its
report,
however,
various demands made by the Judicial Officers

Association
were
not
considered
by
the
Committee as they were beyond its scope. The
Committee
vide
enumerated
the
paragraph
areas
to
73
be
and
reviewed
74
by
Separate Judicial Pay Commission.

True copy of the relevant extracts of Honble
Mr. Justice Padmanabhan Committee report is
marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P7
(Pages ___ to ____)
The Petitioners most respectfully submit that

since then there has been no review of the
service conditions of the subordinate judiciary
even when there has been a periodic review in
respect of administrative services. Thus, even
after
three
rounds
of
litigations
and
two
commissions spanning across two decades that

have brought certain widespread changes in the
working conditions of the subordinate judiciary
in India, there still remains a disparity between
the
working
judicial
conditions
services
and
of
the
other
subordinate
administrative
services in terms of monetary benefit as well as

social security. It is most respectfully submitted
that the pivotal reason for this uncertainty is
lack of a permanent body that can better

understand
the
concerns
and
regulate
the
service conditions of the subordinate judiciary.
i. That on 28/02/2014 the Central Government

has
constituted
the
Seventh
Central
Pay
Commission to yet again review the pay scales

and other allowances of the executive. As a
consequence the negative gap with regard to
the pay scales between the Judiciary and
Political Executive, who are at par, would
increase. This kind of discriminative treatment
amongst equals is volatile of Article 16 read
with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A
copy
of
the
Government
resolution
constituting
passed
the
by
the
Seventh
Pay
Commission is hereto marked and annexed as

ANNEXURE P-8. (Pages ___to___)
j. That on 07/07/2014, the 20th Law Commission
has submitted the 245th report on arrears and
backlogs.
In
the
said
report
the
Law
Commission has recommended to increase the
retirement age of the judges in subordinate

industry from 60 to 62.
True copy of the relevant extracts of 245th Law
Commission report is marked and annexed
hereto as ANNEXURE P-9.
(Pages ___ to
____)
k. That
the
petitioner
has
made
several
representations to the respondents requesting

them to review the service conditions of the
judicial
officers.
representation
was
On
13/05/2015
made
to
the
Cabinet
Secretary of the Government of India
to
constitute an All India Judicial Commission to

review the service conditions of the judicial
officers of District Judiciary in India..
True copy of representation
dated
13/05/2015 made to the Cabinet Secretary of

the
Government
of
India
is
marked
and
annexed hereto as ANNEXURE:P-10. (Pages

___to___).
l. That
on
23/06/2015,
the
abovementioned
representation was rejected by Government of

India on the ground that service conditions of
the judicial officers of State Public Judicial is
not
within
the
competence
of
Central
Government and the Honble Supreme Court

has been seized of the matter.
True copy of letter dated 23/06/2015 issued by
the Joint Secretary of the Government of India
is
marked
and
annexed
hereto
as
ANNEXURE:P-11. (Pages ___to___).

J. It is respectfully stated and submitted that in
the aforesaid background, the Petitioner seeks
to prefer the present petition on the following
amongst the other grounds that may be urged
at the time of hearing of the present petition.
The grounds set out hereunder are without
prejudice to one another.
2. GROUNDS
A. Because there is parity between the Judges and

Political Executive and as such they have to be
treated equally. This Honble Court in the second AIJA
case held that the judicial service is not service in the
sense
of
employees.
'employment'.
The
judges
are
not
As members of the judiciary, they
exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State.

They are holders of public offices in the same way as
the members of the council of ministers and the

members of the legislature. In a democracy the
executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitute
the three pillars of the State, what is intended to be
conveyed is that the three essential functions of the
State are entrusted to the three organs of the State
and each one of them in turn represents the
authority of the State. However, those who exercise
the State-power are the ministers, the legislatures
and the judges, and not the members of their staff
who implement or assist in implementing their
decisions. The council of ministers or the political
executive is different from the secretarial staff or the
administrative
executive
which
carries
out
the
decisions of the political executive. Similarly, the

legislators are different from the legislative staff. So
also the Judges from the judicial staff. The parity is
between the political executive, the legislators and
the Judges and not between the Judges and the
administrative executive. In some democracies like
the U.S.A., members of some State judiciaries are
elected as much as the members of the legislature
and the heads of the State. The Judges, at whatever
level they may be, represent the State and its

authority unlike the administrative executive or the
members of the other services. The members of the
other services, therefore, cannot be placed on par
with
the
members
of
the
judiciary,
either
constitutionally or functionally. This Court also held

second AIJA case that Under the Constitution, the
judiciary is above the administrative executive and
any attempt to place it on par with the administrative
executive has to be discouraged.
B. Because keeping Judges in want of the essential

accoutrements impedes them in the proper discharge
of their duties. This Court in the second AIJA case
held that this distinction between the Judges and the
members of the other services has to be constantly
kept in mind for yet another important reason.
Judicial independence cannot be secured by making
mere solemn proclamations about it. It has to be
secured both in substance and in practice. It is trite
to say that those who are in want cannot be free.
Self-reliance is the foundation of independence. The
society has a stake in ensuring the independence of
the judiciary, and no price is too heavy to secure it.

To
keep
the
judges
in
want
of
the
essential
accoutrements and thus to impede them in the

proper discharge of their duties is to impair and
whittle away justice itself.
C. Because there is discrimination amongst the service

conditions of Judges and Political Executive who are
par under the Constitution. Pay scales of Judicial
officers
have
become
lesser
than
Executive
particularly in Higher Judicial Service cadre for

example
as
per
Honble
Mr.
Justice
Shetty
Commission super time scale for HJS was 22850 to

24850 and
in 5th CPC was 22400-to-24500
but in
Honble Mr. Justice Padmnabhan Report it was 70290

to 76450
but in 6th CPC its 67000
to 79000. This
negative gap would increase after 7 th CPC. In these

circumstances it is essential that a judicial body may
be set up to review the working conditions of the
judges of the subordinate judiciary periodically.
D. Because it is absolutely necessary that appropriate

conditions should be provided for the judicial officer
and he should have reasonable mental peace in order

that
he
may
perform
his
duties
satisfactorily.
Rendering justice is a difficult joband unless the

judicial officer has a reasonably worry free mental
condition, it would be difficult to expect unsoiled
justice from his hands. It is therefore imperative that
a judicial commission may be set up to review the
working conditions of the judges of the subordinate
judiciary periodically.
E. Because the 20th Law Commission in its 245th Report

has recommended that, in order to meet the need
for
large
number
of
appropriately
trained
Subordinate Court Judges, the age of retirement of

Subordinate judges be raised to 62. The benefits of
increase in the retirement age be made available to
judicial officers in terms of the directions of the
Supreme Court in second AIJA Case. Thus there is
a need to change the service conditions of the
judicial officers including but not limited to the
increase in the age of retirement.
F. Because the judges of subordinate judiciary should
be treated differently from the officers of the
administrative services. It is pertinent to point out

thatearlier
also
the
Law
Commission
in
its
14thReport had recommended to raise the age of

retirement of subordinate judges to 62 years, in
order to meet the need of a large number of
adequately
trained
judicial
officers.
The
Law
Commission in its 14th report deals with this aspect

at Page 123 of the report and said that there is yet
another
reason
why
the
question
of
age
of
retirement of subordinate judges should be treated

differently from that in other state services as
judicial officer enters service at a comparatively
higher age, than a recruit to the executive or
administrative services. It would therefore, be
proper that the retirement age of the judicial officer
should be relatively higher age than that of an
executive officer so as to enable him to serve for
the full number of years, if he retains his fitness
and capacity of work till he reaches such higher
age. It is thus, humbly submitted that the nature of
work that the judicial officers and executive officers
undertake is different and by treating unequal
equally (the age of superannuation of both services
is 60 years) Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India are being violated.
G. Because there is a need to review the working

conditions of the judges of the subordinate judiciary
post Honble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan Commission. It
is submitted that since then there has not been any
review of the service conditions of the judicial
officers. Further the scope of Honble Mr. Justice
Padmanabhan Commission was
confined only to
determine the pay scales of all the Judicial Officers

etc. throughout the country on the basis of the
Honble Justice Shetty Commissions Report i.e. First
National Judicial Pay Commission. However on the
other hand the members of administrative services
had
the
benefit
of
periodic
review
of
service
conditions by way of several pay commissions. It is

therefore necessary that the service conditions of the
judicial services may be reviewed by way of a judicial
commission.
H. Because the anomaly in the increments given to the

judicial officers throughout the country ought to be
removed.
Honble
Mr.
Justice
E.
Pabnanabham
suggested Master pay scale with 44 stages. In order

to spread the pay scale between Rs. 27700 to Rs.
76450.00
in
44
stages
Honble
Mr.
Justice
Padmanabhan determined increments of low amount.

It
is
most
respectfully
submitted
that
the
recommendation needs to be reviewed in view of

anomaly in fixing increments. For example, increment
of
Civil
Judge
Senior
Division
is
Rs.
1230.00;
increment of District Judge Entry Level also starts

with Rs. 1230.00. Next stage of increment of district
Judge Entry Level is Rs. 1380.00, the increment of DJ
Selection Grade however again starts from Rs.
1230.00. Apart from this anomaly static rate of
increment put the judicial officers in loss in perpetuity
when compared with running pay bands suggested by
6th pay commission and accepted by Hon Apex Court
while determining pay scales of the employees of
Supreme Court of India.
I. Because the judges of subordinate judiciary are
bearing a recurring loss in view of the anomaly in
increments. It is pertinent to point out that Honble
Mr.
Justice
Shetty
Commission
had
consideredgranting increments as a percentage of

basic pay, but at that point of time such system was
found operationally inconvenient (Para 15.51 report).
However
the
6th
Central
Pay
Commission
recommended running pay bands by suggesting

increments @ 3% of basic pay.
Advantages of
system to fix salary in pay bands are mentioned in

Para 2.2.13 of sixth Pay Commission Report. It is
most respectfully submitted that pay band and grade
pay system may be adopted to avoid recurring loss of
the Judges.
J. Because it is essential to bring uniformity inthe pay
scales of the judges who have been recruited through
different sources.For example, a person joining as
Civil Judge Junior Division (CJJD for short) has an
opportunity for promotion after 5 to 7 years. If he is
not promoted in 5 years, even then he can get ACP
and will be shifted to new pay scale. In view of this it
is most respectfully submitted that stages of pay
scale for CJJD cadre can be reduced to 17 stages. A
judge in the cadre of Civil Judge Senior Division
(CJSD for short) gets an opportunity for promotion
in the cadre of District Judge (DJ for short) in five
years. His optimum length of service in the cadre of

CJSD will be of 10 to 11 years, so 11 stages can be
dedicated in the master pay scale for the cadre of
CJSD. 8 stages could be keep for the cadre of DJ
Entry Level, 8 stages for the cadre of DJ Selection
Grade and 4 stages for DJ Super Time in this way,
Master pay scale of 36 stages will be appropriate and
will cater the need to provide 3% increment to the
judges with running pay band but without grade pay.
In the absence of a body,that is familiar with the
judiciary
and
the
facilities
required
of
judicial
officers,to review and redress these anomalies, it is

difficult
to
bring
improvement
in
the
working
conditions of the sub-ordinate judiciary.

K. Because there is a need to review the entitlements of
the judicial officers by way of allowances. Honble Mr.
Justice Padmanabhan proposed hike in some of the
allowances.
Honble
Mr.
Justice
Padmanabhan
however avoided considering recommendations of 6 th

central pay commission regarding the changes in the
scheme
of
introduction
providing
some
of
allowances.
new
allowances
and
Sumptuary
allowances is required to be provided @ Rs. 6000.00
per month to DJ Rs. 4500.00 to CJSD and Rs.3000.00

to CJJD, total expenses of electricity and water
charges
are
directed
to
be
reimbursed,
robe
allowance of Rs. 16000.for block of three years be

provided, reimbursement for mobile phone bill to be
provided, conveyance allowance of Rs.7000.00 per
month plus DA be provided, HTC be provided every
year. Children education allowance and hostel subsidy
be provided to the judges as recommended by 6th
pay commission.
L. Because in view of the nature of work and stringent
restrictions thereon, it is essential that the judicial
officers may be paid pension as per the pension
scheme approved by this Honble Court as against
the new scheme implemented by the government. It
is
most
respectfully
submitted
that
the
pensionscheme as recommended by Honble Mr.

Justice Shetty Commission is not applicable to newly
recruited Judges. They are required to contribute
10% of basis pay as member contributory scheme.
As service conditions of judges are governed by
recommendations
of
Honble
Mr.
Justice
Shetty
Commission the state government cannot unilaterally

withdraw the pension scheme for the judges. The
judges recruited after 2003 are neither getting the

benefits of pension scheme not they are getting total
pay recommended by Honble Mr. Justice Shetty
Commission.
M.Because
to
maintain
the
independence
of
the
judiciary it is necessary that there is an Independent

Commission which has the power to review the
service conditions of the Subordinate Judiciary. This
Court held in the second AIJA case that the present
practice of entrusting the work of recommending the
service conditions of the members of the subordinate
judiciary
to
the
same
Pay
Commissions
which
recommend the service conditions of the other

services
requires
reconsideration.
The
service
conditions of the judicial officers should be laid down

and reviewed from time to time by an independent
Commission exclusively constituted for the purpose,
and the composition of such commission should
reflect adequate representation on behalf of the
judiciary. In this regard the Honble Court further
noted in the second AIJA case that in view of the
separation of the powers under the Constitution, and
the need to maintain the independence of the
judiciary to protect and promote democracy and the

rule of law, it would have been ideal if the most
dominant power of the executive and the legislative
over the judiciary, viz., that of determining its service
conditions had been subjected to some desirable
checks and balances. This is so even if ultimately, the
service
conditions
incorporated
in
of
and
the
judiciary
declared
by
have
the
to
be
legislative
enactments. But the mere fact that Article 309 gives

power
to
the
executive
and
the
legislature
to
prescribe the service conditions of the judiciary does

not mean that the judiciary should have no say in the
matter. It
would
be
against
the
spirit
of
the
Constitution to deny any rule to the judiciary in that

behalf, for theoretically it would not be impossible for
the executive or the legislature to turn and twist the
tail of the judiciary by using the said power. Such a
consequence would be against one of the seminal
mandates of the Constitution, namely, to maintain
the independence of the judiciary.
N. Because the work of the judicial officers throughout

the country is of the similar nature, the service
conditions have to be uniform. This Court in the

second
AIJA
entrusting
case
the
emphasized
work
of
the
necessity
prescribing
the
of
service
conditions for the judicial officers to a separate Pay

Commission exclusively set up for the purpose. We
reiterate the importance of such separate commission
and also of the desirability of prescribing uniform pay
scales to the judges all over the country. Since such
pay scales will be the minimum deserved by the
judicial officers, the argument that some of the
States may not be able to bear the financial burden is
irrelevant. The uniform service conditions as and
when laid down would not, of course, affect any
special or extra benefits which some States may be
bestowing upon their judicial officers.
O. Because there is a need for creation of All India

Judicial Services to improve and bring uniformity the
administration of justice throughout the country. The
need for All India Judicial Services was felt as early
as
in
1958
recommended
when
the
creation
of
14th
an
Law
All
Commission
India
Judicial
Services. Subsequently an amendment was also

brought in the constitution enabling the government
to establish All India Judicial Services. However

despite the directions of this Honble Court to
examine the feasibility of the implementation of these
recommendations in the case of first AIJA case, till
date
nothing
concrete
has
happened
for
establishment of AIJS.
P. Because there is wide variance in the pay structure

prevailing in the various States and Union Territories
and the judicial officers are remunerated differently
for
similar
nature
of
work.
pay
commission
separately constituted for examining and reviewing

the pay structures of judicial officers across the
country will be able to better assess the reasons for
such variance and bring about uniformity, as far as
may be possible, in the terms and conditions of
service of the subordinate judiciary.
Q. Because the Court needs to issue directions to the

authorities
to
perform
their
obligatory
duties
whenever there is a failure on their part to discharge

them and the legislature and executive in this
instance have failed to meet their obligations by
neglecting to improve the service conditions of the
R. Because by deleting a reference in respect of pay

scales of judicial officers from the terms of reference
of
the
5th
Central
contemporaneously
Pay
Commission
constituting
the
and
Shetty
Commission, the Central Government had agreed to

set up a pay commission specifically for judicial
officers at the same time as constitution of a pay
commission for executives. However, the Central
Government has failed to constitute a separate pay
commission
for
the
subordinate
judiciary
subsequently when it constituted the 6th Central Pay

Commission in 2008 and when it recently constituted
the 7th Central Pay Commission in 2014.
S. Because the Central Government has rejected the

representation of the petitioner on the ground that
this Honble Court has been seized of the matter. In
these circumstances, the petitioner are left with no
option but to approach this Honble Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for redressal of
their grievances.
T. The Petitioner craves leave to add, amend or alter the

grounds during the course of pendency of the instant
Writ Petition.
3. That the Petitioner has not filed any other or similar

Petition before this Honble Court or any other Court
for similar relief as prayed for in the present Writ
Petition.
PRAYER
It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Honble Court

may be pleased:
1. To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of

mandamus or such other writ / order / direction as
may be necessary directing the Respondents to
constitute All India Judicial Commission in terms of
the
representation
made
by
the
Petitioner
to
Respondent No. 1 on 13/05/2015 to review the

service
conditions
of
the
judicial
officers
of
subordinate judiciary in India including but not

limited to Pay Scale, Retirement Age, Pension and
other emoluments of the Sub-ordinate judiciary from
time to time;
2. To issue such orders as may be necessary to direct

the Respondent No 1 to undertake appropriate
exercise to ascertain the feasibility of establishing an

All India Judicial Services; and
3. To pass such other orders and further orders as may

be deemed necessary on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL

AS INDUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
SETTLED BY:
MR. GOURAB BANERJI
(SENIOR ADVOCATE)
DRAWN AND FILED BY:
(MAYURI RAGHUVANSHI)
Advocate on Record for the Petitioner
DRAWN ON:
FILED ON:

Writ Petiton AIJA Supreme Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writ Petiton AIJA Supreme Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The Petitioner is seeking review and improvement of the

inception, the AIJA has striven towards achieving its

service conditions of judicial officers. These commissions

that the instant petition is being filed so that the judicial

Article 50 of the Constitution of India incorporates the

Importantly, though the periodic exercise of constituting a

However, these directions by this Honble Court were

to the same Pay Commission which recommended the

Commission with regard to the fixation of Pay Scales of

The 5th Central Pay Commission submitted its report on

30/09/1997 and was made applicable w.e.f. 01/01/1996.

Commission for short) submitted its report on 11/11/1999

recommendations which have been made by the 5th

21/03/2002 vide All India Judges Association Vs.

Though this Honble Court in its review judgment (as

Government constituting the subsequent Pay Commission

recommended that as and when the salaries of High Court

Amendment Ordinance, 2009, published in the Gazette of

28/04/2009 in All India Judges Association Vs. Union

his report dated

17/07/2009 and made several determinations on the basis

recommendations be implemented w.e.f. 01/01/2006 i.e.

Central Government. However, the Commission in para

Since most of the demands so made are

Commission has enumerated those demands,

Commission or at the appropriate level and they

The Commission in Part VIII of its report, has made

Five Days a week.

Provision for Transit/Guest House facility.

Issuance of Car stickers for personal cars of

Separate Forum (State Level and National Level)

Welfare activities for the fraternity in general.

Advance of salary for meeting contingencies 15

days salary prayed.

transportation, quest houses, rest houses etc.

Pensioners to avail medical facilities etc.

II ACP alongwith fixation of seniority to be

Change of nomenclature of Civil Judge (Junior

Thus, several essential conditions of service of the judicial

simultaneously with the Pay Commission constituted for

appointment of a Judicial Pay Commission

In exercise of its executive power under Article 73 of the

The Petitioner has made several representations to the

conditionsof the judicial officers. The Petitioner made a

Government of India on 13/5/2015 but representation was

Hence this writ petition is being filed.

chronologically, are as under:

This Honble Court delivered its judgmentin

improvement of the service conditions of

the members of subordinate judiciary. The

should be set up and the Union of

steps in this regard.

criminal side by 31/03/1993

appropriate steps are to be taken

appropriate pay scales of judicial

Provision for sumptuary allowance

every judicial officer has to be

requisitioned accommodation for

should be kept in view.

acquire two wheeler automobiles

8. In-service institute should be set

This Honble Court in All India Judges

Each of the general and special