http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/102219893452010p.txt
In continuation of Order passed by this Court on 7.4.2010, we pass the following order.
Many of the States, for example, State of A.P. Gujarat, Orissa, Maharashtra and Goa had already submitted that they have no objection with the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee and would take appropriate steps to implement the same. The State of U.P., Rajasthan, Orissa submitted that they would implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee Report with effect from 1.1.2006.
Some of the States, especially the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur and J&K stated that they have got serious financial constraint and some of the States have already implemented 6th Pay Commission and there exists disparity in the recommendations between 6th Pay Commission and pay scale suggested by Justice Padmanabhan Committee, which should be avoided. It is submitted that these States would be further financially burdened if present Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations are accepted. They also submitted that they should get assistance from Union of India for implementation of these recommendations. Their contention is that the pay scales to be paid to the Judicial Officers would be much higher then what is being paid to other Executives of the States. It was, therefore, suggested that so much of increase in pay scale be avoided, which is likely to become an eyesore.
The same plea was raised when this Court directed to implement Justice Shetty Commission's recommendations. This Court observed in All India Judges' Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC p.247, which is as follows:
“22. The learned Solicitor-General, however, submitted that the recommendation of the Shetty Commission that the Union of India should bear 50 per cent of the total expense was inconsistent with the constitutional set-up. Had there been an All-India Judicial Service, then the Union of India may have been under an obligation to bear the expense, but as the State Governments had not agreed to the establishment of the All-India Judicial Service and no legislation had been passed under Entry 11-A of List III by Parliament, therefore it will not be correct to direct the Central Government to bear 50 per cent of the expense on the judicial system. The learned Solicitor-General submitted that the obligation to meet the expenses of the judicial service, except for the Supreme Court and the courts in the Union Territories, was on the State Governments. He contended that when allocation of funds between the Centre and the States takes place the expenses which the States are required to meet in connection with the administration of justice is a factor which is taken into consideration. The provision for devolution of funds from the Union to the States is either by assignment of taxes or distribution of taxes or by grants-in-aid. As and when the need arises, either the Finance Commission or the Union of India allocates more funds to the States.
It has not been disputed that at present the entire expense on the administration of justice in the States is incurred by the respective States. It is their responsibility and they discharge the same. Logically, if there is to be any increase in the expenditure on the judiciary, then it would be for the States to mobilise the resources in such a way whereby they can meet the expenditure on the judiciary for discharging their constitutional obligations. Merely because there is an increase in the financial burden as a result of the Shetty Commission Report being accepted, can be no ground for fastening liability on the Union of India when none exists at present. Accordingly, disagreeing on this point with Justice Shetty Commission recommendations, we direct that the entire expenditure on account of the recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission, as accepted, be borne by the respective States. It is for the States to increase the court fee or to approach the Finance Commission or the Union of India for more allocation of funds. They can also mobilise their resources in order to meet the financial obligation. If such a need arises and the States approach the Financial Commission or the Union of India for allocation of more funds, we have no doubt that such a request shall be favourably considered.”
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions as advanced by some of the States cannot be accepted.
The States of West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh informed that they have implemented the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee. There is some difference of opinion as regards certain allowances payable to the judicial officers, otherwise, they have fully implemented Justice Padmanabhan Committee. The High Courts of these States should endeavor to iron out the creases and have discussions with State Governments and should sort out the differences at the earliest. If there is any difficulty, it could be brought to the notice of this Court.
Most of the States have contended that they have implemented 6th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.2006 but in some States they have implemented from 1st April, 2010, therefore, they would not be in a position to implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee with effect from 1.1.2006. We are unable to accept this contention. All the States are hereby directed to implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations with effect from 1.1.2006. There should be uniformity and all the States should implement recommendations and shall raise the pay scale allowances from 1.1.2006 and shall pay arrears of salary, if any.
However, with an intention to give maximum benefits to the Judicial Officers, following modalities are worked out, with regard to payment of arrears of pay scales.
60% of the arrears be paid in cash spread over in two financial years and 40% be deposited in the Provident Fund account forthwith in the respective account of the Judicial Officers. We reiterate that if in any State the 6th Pay Commission recommendations are more beneficial to the Judicial Officers, they will continue to be benefited to that extent. The State of Andhra Pradesh has already issued a Notification accepting the recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee report. We make the A.P. Government's Order dated 01.05.2010, as a part of this order (marked as Annexure-A) so that the same could be followed by other States also.
The Secretaries/Law Secretaries/Registrars/Registrar Generals of all the States/High Courts are present in this Court and their presence is dispensed with. Consequently, the I.A.s in respect of their presence are disposed of. We highly appreciate the cooperation rendered by these officers during the course of hearing.
Justice Padmanabhan Committee has made some recommendations regarding allowances. The respective States/High Courts are directed to submit their objections, if any, positively within eight weeks. This is, of course, in case they are not able to sort out the differences themselves
List after eight weeks for directions regarding allowances and pensions.
(R.K. Dhawan) (G.V.Ramana) (Veera Verma)
AR-cum-PS Court Master Asstt.Registrar
Many of the States, for example, State of A.P. Gujarat, Orissa, Maharashtra and Goa had already submitted that they have no objection with the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee and would take appropriate steps to implement the same. The State of U.P., Rajasthan, Orissa submitted that they would implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee Report with effect from 1.1.2006.
Some of the States, especially the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur and J&K stated that they have got serious financial constraint and some of the States have already implemented 6th Pay Commission and there exists disparity in the recommendations between 6th Pay Commission and pay scale suggested by Justice Padmanabhan Committee, which should be avoided. It is submitted that these States would be further financially burdened if present Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations are accepted. They also submitted that they should get assistance from Union of India for implementation of these recommendations. Their contention is that the pay scales to be paid to the Judicial Officers would be much higher then what is being paid to other Executives of the States. It was, therefore, suggested that so much of increase in pay scale be avoided, which is likely to become an eyesore.
The same plea was raised when this Court directed to implement Justice Shetty Commission's recommendations. This Court observed in All India Judges' Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC p.247, which is as follows:
“22. The learned Solicitor-General, however, submitted that the recommendation of the Shetty Commission that the Union of India should bear 50 per cent of the total expense was inconsistent with the constitutional set-up. Had there been an All-India Judicial Service, then the Union of India may have been under an obligation to bear the expense, but as the State Governments had not agreed to the establishment of the All-India Judicial Service and no legislation had been passed under Entry 11-A of List III by Parliament, therefore it will not be correct to direct the Central Government to bear 50 per cent of the expense on the judicial system. The learned Solicitor-General submitted that the obligation to meet the expenses of the judicial service, except for the Supreme Court and the courts in the Union Territories, was on the State Governments. He contended that when allocation of funds between the Centre and the States takes place the expenses which the States are required to meet in connection with the administration of justice is a factor which is taken into consideration. The provision for devolution of funds from the Union to the States is either by assignment of taxes or distribution of taxes or by grants-in-aid. As and when the need arises, either the Finance Commission or the Union of India allocates more funds to the States.
It has not been disputed that at present the entire expense on the administration of justice in the States is incurred by the respective States. It is their responsibility and they discharge the same. Logically, if there is to be any increase in the expenditure on the judiciary, then it would be for the States to mobilise the resources in such a way whereby they can meet the expenditure on the judiciary for discharging their constitutional obligations. Merely because there is an increase in the financial burden as a result of the Shetty Commission Report being accepted, can be no ground for fastening liability on the Union of India when none exists at present. Accordingly, disagreeing on this point with Justice Shetty Commission recommendations, we direct that the entire expenditure on account of the recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission, as accepted, be borne by the respective States. It is for the States to increase the court fee or to approach the Finance Commission or the Union of India for more allocation of funds. They can also mobilise their resources in order to meet the financial obligation. If such a need arises and the States approach the Financial Commission or the Union of India for allocation of more funds, we have no doubt that such a request shall be favourably considered.”
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions as advanced by some of the States cannot be accepted.
The States of West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh informed that they have implemented the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee. There is some difference of opinion as regards certain allowances payable to the judicial officers, otherwise, they have fully implemented Justice Padmanabhan Committee. The High Courts of these States should endeavor to iron out the creases and have discussions with State Governments and should sort out the differences at the earliest. If there is any difficulty, it could be brought to the notice of this Court.
Most of the States have contended that they have implemented 6th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.2006 but in some States they have implemented from 1st April, 2010, therefore, they would not be in a position to implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee with effect from 1.1.2006. We are unable to accept this contention. All the States are hereby directed to implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations with effect from 1.1.2006. There should be uniformity and all the States should implement recommendations and shall raise the pay scale allowances from 1.1.2006 and shall pay arrears of salary, if any.
However, with an intention to give maximum benefits to the Judicial Officers, following modalities are worked out, with regard to payment of arrears of pay scales.
60% of the arrears be paid in cash spread over in two financial years and 40% be deposited in the Provident Fund account forthwith in the respective account of the Judicial Officers. We reiterate that if in any State the 6th Pay Commission recommendations are more beneficial to the Judicial Officers, they will continue to be benefited to that extent. The State of Andhra Pradesh has already issued a Notification accepting the recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee report. We make the A.P. Government's Order dated 01.05.2010, as a part of this order (marked as Annexure-A) so that the same could be followed by other States also.
The Secretaries/Law Secretaries/Registrars/Registrar Generals of all the States/High Courts are present in this Court and their presence is dispensed with. Consequently, the I.A.s in respect of their presence are disposed of. We highly appreciate the cooperation rendered by these officers during the course of hearing.
Justice Padmanabhan Committee has made some recommendations regarding allowances. The respective States/High Courts are directed to submit their objections, if any, positively within eight weeks. This is, of course, in case they are not able to sort out the differences themselves
List after eight weeks for directions regarding allowances and pensions.
(R.K. Dhawan) (G.V.Ramana) (Veera Verma)
AR-cum-PS Court Master Asstt.Registrar
No comments:
Post a Comment