ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 26, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Directions issued
Segment: Body
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
   [2023] 7 S.C.R. 26
26
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 643/2015)
MAY 19, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Judiciary – District Judiciary – Recommendations of the
Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC/Commission) on
pay, pension, gratuity, age of retirement etc.– Revision of pay
structure was accepted vide order dtd. 27.07.2022 – Review petitions
filed by some States and the Union were dismissed vide order dtd.
05.04.2023 – Benefits of the recommendations as regards pay be
given w.e.f 01.01.2016 – No change in percentage of pension for
retirees on or after 01.01.2016 – Multiplier of 2.81 to apply to
pensioners as well – For judicial officers retired before 01.01.2016,
the revised pension should be 50% of the last drawn pay – Necessary
amendments to be carried out in Service Rules of the Judicial Officers
across all jurisdictions – High Courts and the competent authorities
to bring the rules in conformity with the various recommendations
accepted by Supreme Court within 3 months – Compliance affidavits
be placed on record by the High Courts, the States and the Union
within 4 months – Vide orders dtd. 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, all
arrears of pay were already directed to be cleared by 30.06.2023 –
Compliance affidavits be filed by 30.07.2023 – Approved revised
rates of pension shall be payable from
01.07.2023 – For the payment
of arrears of pension, additional pension, gratuity and other retiral
benefits, following the Orders dtd. 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, 25%
be paid by 31.08.2023, another 25% by 31.10.2023, and the
remaining 50% by 31.12.2023 – Matters to be listed for further
compliance on pay and pension.
Judiciary – District Judiciary – Principles evolved for judicial
pay, pension and allowances – Held: A unified judiciary requires
uniform designations and service conditions of judicial officers
across the country – Judges are not employees of the State but are
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
27
holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial power – They
are only comparable to members of the legislature and ministers in
the executive – Parity cannot be claimed between staff of the
legislative wing and executive wing with officers of the judicial
wing – The independence of the judiciary requires that pay of judicial
officers must be stand-alone and not compared to that of staff of
the political executive or the legislature – Independence of the
judiciary, which includes the District Judiciary, is part of the basic
structure of the Constitution – Access to an independent judiciary
enforces fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution – The essential function of all judicial officers in the
District Judiciary and judges of the High Court and this Court is
essentially the same – Principles discussed – Doctrine of inherent
powers – Constitution of India – Article 125, 221.
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD:1.1 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
ON PAY
Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on pay-
I.Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity with the
All India Pattern
In India, the judiciary is unified. The designations of judges,
therefore, ought to be uniform across the country. In this regard,
the First National Judicial Pay Commission (FNJPC) suggested
the following nomenclature to be adopted pan- India:i. Civil Judge
(Jr. Div); ii. Civil Judge (Sr. Div); iii. District Judge. A thorough
examination by the SNJPC
revealed that these designations have
not been adopted in few states. This recommendation had been
accepted in the FNJPC by virtue of judgment in All India Judges’
Assn. (II) v. Union of India. This direction be followed by the High
Courts and all High Courts amend their designations in conformity
with the suggestions of the FNJPC and SNJPC. It is also relevant
to note that in light of the pay matrix suggested by the SNJPC,
without uniform designations, issues may arise in the future for
fitment of the different designations which are used in the different
states. Such complications ought to be avoided by this Court.
Thus, the recommendation of the Commission is accepted.
Consequently, the High Courts are directed to ensure that the
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
designation of judicial officers is uniformly the same. [Paras 42-
45][58-G; 59-A-E]
II. New Pay Structure as per Pay Matrix Model
As the recommendation of the SNJPC is only to bring the
pay structure in conformity with the 7th Central Pay Commission,
there cannot be any objection on these recommendations. Thus,
it is directed that the pay structure of the Judicial Officers be
modified suitably, reflecting the recommendations suggested by
the SNJPC. [Para 46][59-F-G]
III. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform Application
The pay of judicial officers is to be increased commensurate
to the pay of the Judges of High Courts. When the judges of the
High Courts were granted a multiplier of 2.81, the judicial officers
were also to be granted the same multiplier. This has been the
precedent set by the previous Judicial Pay Commissions and
endorsed by this Court repeatedly. This Court has already
rejected the objections of the States and the Union and
consequently accepted the multiplier/Index of Rationalization of
2.81 in Order dated 27.07.202223 and Order dated 05.04.202324.
The multiplier/index of rationalization as suggested by the SNJPC
be accepted. The pay of the judicial officers be increased as per
the Table-I annexed to the Order dated 27.07.2022. [Paras 48-
50][60-C-F]
IV. Increments
The recommendations of the Commission in so far as it
notionally grants the increment for the purposes of pension is
completely justified.
As a consequence of the acceptance of the
recommendation, the calculation of pension must notionally
include the increment for the purposes of calculation of pension.
The High Courts are directed to amend the applicable rule to
state that the increment which becomes due to the judicial officer
on the day after his retirement may be notionally included in the
calculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to the vertical
ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-. [Para 55][61-G; 62-A-B]
V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale to Pay
Matrix System
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
29
The Commission recommended the formula and method
to ensure that the migration from the master pay scale to the pay
matrix system is smooth. The Commission has devised the
fitment/migration formula. While accepting this recommendation
for fitment/migration as amended by the Corrigendum dated
March 2021, the examples must form part of the relevant rules
that are required to be encoded by the High Courts, the States
and the Union. Therefore, the recommendation is accepted and
the authorities are directed to implement the same keeping in
mind the examples that have been given by the Commission.
[Paras 56, 59][62-C; 63-C]
VI. Application of Recommendations from 01.01.2016
The 7th Central Pay Commission came into force from
01.01.2016. However, the last pay revision of the judicial officers
was with effect from 01.01.2006. More than 17 years have passed
since the judicial officers have received a pay revision. Noting
this, the recommendation must be accepted by this Court. The
benefits of the recommendations as regards pay be given effect
to with effect from 01.01.2016. [Para 60][63-E-F]
VII. DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central Government
The recommendation of the SNJPC is that Dearness
Allowance may be paid at the rate fixed by the Central
Government. A fixed rate of Dearness Allowance would also
ensure that there is no lag in the accrual of the dearness allowance
to the judicial officers. A uniform rate of DA would achieve the
goals of uniformity as well as
efficiency. In such circumstances,
the recommendation deserves acceptance. [Paras 62, 63][64-E,G;
65-A]
VIII. Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr Div)
The Commission suggested that the 1st Assured Career
Progression be given to the Civil Judges (Jr Div) be granted on
the basis of relaxed norms of performance. The grant of 1st ACP
to Civil Judge (Jr Div) be given on the basis of relaxed norms
which may be devised by the High Courts, with reference to the
suggestions of the Commission. [Paras 64, 69][65-B; 66-D-E]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
All India Judges Association (III) v. Union of India,
(2002) 4 SCC 247 : [2002] 2 SCR 712; All India Judges
Association (3) v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170;
All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2022) 7 SCC
494 – referred to.
IX. Delay in Grant of ACP
A perusal of the Commission’s Report shows that, in many
states, the grant of ACP scale is delayed. The SNJPC’s finding
that the lack of timely preparation and scrutiny of ACR is the
primary reason behind delay is concerning. ACRs are bound to
be done in a timely manner and without delay so as to ensure that
the whole judicial system is functioning in an efficient manner.
Accordingly, the High Courts may be directed to ensure that the
delay in making ACRs is avoided in the future. To avoid this
delay in the future, the Commission suggested that the process
of grant of ACP should be initiated 3 months in advance from the
date on which the judicial officers will be completing 5/10 years
and the financial benefits should be paid to the judicial officer
within a period of 6 months after the judicial officer steps into the
6th/11th year of Service. Therefore, the Commission
recommended that if grant of ACP is delayed for every year, one
additional increment shall be granted for every year of delay
subject to the adjustment with the ACP arrears. The
recommendations of the Commission are reasonable. Thus, the
recommendation merits acceptance. [Paras 70-73][66-E-G; 67-
A-C]
X. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding Judges of
Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts The recommendation of the
Tribunal that the pay revision be extended to judges of the
Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts merits acceptance as it is only
an extension of the law laid down by this Court. [Para 77][68-C-
E]
State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2008) 12 SCC
219 : [2008] 9 SCR 1078; State of Maharashtra v.
Labour Law Practitioners & Assn., (1998) 2 SCC 688
: [1998] 1 SCR 793 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
31
XI. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra
The recommendation of the Commission is that the Judges
of the Family Court also be entitled to the benefit of Selection
Grade and Super Time Scale as well. The Commission further
recommends that quarters also be given to them from the general
pool of accommodation. The recommendation of the SNJPC is in
line with the same principles as laid down by this Court in State of
Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar and State of Maharashtra v. Labour
Law Practitioners’ Assn. for Labour Courts. When equal work is
done by the judicial officers, their pay and conditions of service
must also be equal. Thus, the recommendation of the Commission
is accepted. [Paras 79, 80][68-G; 69-A-B]
XII. Minimum Remuneration to Special Judicial
Magistrates (Second Class) and Special Metropolitan Magistrates
The recommendations and their modifications/acceptance
is tabulated.
1.2 CONSIDERATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON
PENSION, GRATUITY ETC.
I.No Change in Percentage of Pension for Retirees On or
After 01.01.2016
The Commission has not recommended any change in the
current percentage of pension, fixed at 50% of last drawn pay for
pension and 30% for last drawn pay for family pension. The FNJPC
had also recommended this position and this Court had accepted
it. Therefore, when no change is recommended, no real objections
can be raised regarding the recommendation. [Para 86][76-B-C]
II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be
50% of the Last
Drawn Pay
After considering the opinions of the FNJPC and the One-
Person Commission, the Commission recommended that for
judicial officers who retired before 01.01.2016, the revised
pension should be 50% of the last drawn pay of the post held at
the time of retirement. This is also unchanged in its formulation
and thus remains the same. [Para 87][76-D]
III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in Pay Matrix
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
The recommendation of the Commission is that the
multiplier of 2.81 will equally apply to pensioners as well as with
the recommendation on fitment in pay, the SNJPC has issued a
corrigendum on fitment in its Supplemental Report dated March
2021. This Corrigendum corrects arithmetical mistakes made in
the original report. Therefore, the fitment table must be construed
in accordance with the corrected table on fitment. The multiplier
which applies to pay must also apply to pension. Consequently,
the pensioners must be therefore fitted into the same scheme in
the pay matrix. The recommendation is thus accepted. [Paras
88-90][76-E-F, G-H; 77-A]
IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers who
Retired Prior to 01.01.1996
The Commission noted that due to a discrepancy in the
report of the One-Person Commission, the pension granted to
judicial officers who retired after 2006 was not being given in
parity to those who retired before 2006. The recommendation of
the Commission is only in furtherance of parity. State
Governments have, in the past, been directed to undertake the
consequential re-fixation before. However, if such consequential
re-fixation has not been undertaken, the officers who had retired
prior to 1996, and who would have aged significantly would be
discriminated against. Such a situation ought to be avoided and
thus 
the 
recommendation 
merits 
acceptance. 
This
recommendation is directed to be
implemented immediately and
without delay. [Paras 91, 92][77-B-C, E-F]
V. Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while calculating
pension
The recommendation, being the implementation of the
judgment of this Court, merits acceptance. [Para 93][78-B]
Government of NCT Delhi v All India Young Lawyers
Association (2009) 14 SCC 49 : [2009] 3 SCR 555 –
relied on.
VI. Recommendations on Family Pension
As regards family pension, the Commission has not
recommended any change in the existing percentage, i.e., 30%
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
33
of the last drawn pay. Therefore, this recommendation, as such,
does not warrant any further deliberation as it is the mere
continuation of the existing regime. The recommendation is
accepted. At the same time, the Commission has recommended
payment of family pension @ 30% to the eligible family member
after the death of the spouse. This benefit has been given in light
of Rule 54 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which grants similar
benefits to members of the central civil services. This
recommendation is also thus accepted as it has been granted to
members of the central civil services. The quantum of family
pension must be increased as per the same multiplier/index of
rationalization applicable for pension. This is because the same
factors which are applicable to pay and pension leading to their
increase also equally apply to family pension. The Commission
has also recommended the same. The recommendation is
accepted and it is directed that the quantum of family pension
also worked out in the same manner as quantum of pension is
worked out. The last recommendation is that on the income limit
prescribed by States to be eligible for family pension. The
minimum limit prescribed by the Commission was Rs. 30,000/-.
This limit is reasonable but it must be left to the discretion of the
States to prescribe a higher limit which is more beneficial to the
judicial officers. Thus, the recommendation is accepted. [Paras
94-97][78-C-G]
VII. Recommendations on Additional
Quantum of Pension/
Family Pension
On account of the additional assistance required on
increasing age, it has been the policy of the Central Government
to grant additional quantum of pension. The Commission has
recommended the payment of additional quantum of pension from
the age of 75 years onwards. Given that many of the States granted
this benefit from the age of 70 and the Commission recommended
the grant of additional quantum of pension from the age of 75.
This reasoning of the Commission merits acceptance. If States
have been granting more beneficial pension rates, it cannot be
denied to the judicial officers. Judicial Officers cannot be left worse
off than officers of the State. Therefore, this Court accepts this
recommendation. The Commission has further recommended that
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
this benefit be paid from 01.01.2016. As with the other similar
recommendations for the aspects of pay and pension, this
recommendation is accepted. If judicial officers have already been
granted a more beneficial regime and are moved to the regime
suggested by the Commission and accepted by the Court, no
recovery ought to be made against them. Consequently, it is left
to the States to continue the benefits upto the age of 75 years as
well. These recommendations are accordingly accepted. [Para
98, 100-102][78-H; 79-A, C-F]
VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity
The first recommendation on Gratuity by the Commission
is to bring the calculation of gratuity on par with Rule 50(1)(a) of
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. There cannot
be any dispute regarding this recommendation as it is to bring
about uniformity in conditions of service. Therefore, this
recommendation merits acceptance by this Court. The
Commission further recommended that the maximum limit for
retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which
shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. This
recommendation has also been made in accordance with the
Report of the 7th CPC, and the purpose of the same is to ensure
that the cost of living does not make the gratuity without purpose.
Therefore, this recommendation also merits acceptance by the
Court. The third recommendation is to make the
recommendations 
effective 
from
01.01.2016. 
The
recommendations must come into force from 01.01.2016.
Consequentially, those judicial officers who retired after
01.01.2016 must also benefit from the acceptance of the Report.
Thus, the Commission has suggested that the differential gratuity
be paid to them subject to the revised maximum limit. This is
merely consequential and is accepted by this Court. The final
recommendation made by the Commission on the subject of
gratuity is that death gratuity be paid on the same lines as the 7th
CPC. Accordingly, the recommendation is accepted as it is in
line with the already accepted principles laid down by this Court.
[Paras 103-106][79-G-H; 80-A-D]
IX. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in Case of
Death
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
35
The Commission has recommended that where a judicial
officer dies while in service, the family pension and death cum
retirement gratuity as per the applicable rules is payable to the
spouse/dependent, of the deceased officer. The recommendation
of the Commission is in terms of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972. This recommendation is reasonable and in
furtherance of the principle of uniformity across services.
Therefore, it merits acceptance by this Court. [Para 108][80-F-
G]
All India Judges Association (II) v. Union of India (1993)
4 SCC 288 : [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 749; S.P. Gupta v.
Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 : [1982] SCR 365;
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of
India (1993) 4 SCC 441 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 659;
Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, In re, (1998) 7 SCC
739 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 400; Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (2016) 5
SCC 1 : [2015] 13 SCR 1; Director, KPTCL v. CP
Mundinamani (2023) SCC Online SC 401; Anita
Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016) 8 SCC 509 : [2016]
9 SCR 560 – relied on.
All India Judges Association. v. Union of India (2019)
12 SCC 314; Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2012)
6 SCC 502 : [2012] 5 SCR 305; Hussainara Khatoon
(I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 :
[1979] 3 SCR 169; Commissioner of Police Delhi v.
Registrar, Delhi High Court (1996) 6 SCC 323 : [1996]
7 Suppl. SCR 432; Mohd. Hussain v. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi (2012) 9 SCC 408 : [2012] 10 SCR 480; All
India
Judges Association v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC
720; Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India (2021) SCC
Online All 1090; Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1969) 2 SCR 113; All India
Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 444; All
India Judges Assn. v. Union of India WP(C) No.1022/
1989 Order dated 14.07.2016; All India Judges Assn.
v. Union of India WP(C) No.1022/1989 Order dated
13.03.2018 – referred to.
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Commonwealth ex rel Carroll vs. Tate, 274 A.2d. 193 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 749
relied on
Para 1, 15, 23, 24,
25, 27 & 43
[2002] 2 SCR 712
referred to
Para 2, 48 & 66
(2010) 15 SCC 170
referred to
Para 3, 66
(2019) 12 SCC 314
referred to
Para 5
[2012] 5 SCR 305
referred to
Para 13
[1982] SCR 365
relied on
Para 30
[1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 659
relied on
Para 30
[1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 400
relied on
Para 30
[2015] 13 SCR 1
relied on
Para 30
[1979] 3 SCR 169
referred to
Para 32
[1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 432
referred to
Para 32
[2012] 10 SCR 480
referred to
Para 32
[2016] 9 SCR 560
relied on
Para 32
(2010) 14 SCC 720
referred to
Para 48
(1969) 2 SCR 113
referred to
Para 62
(2022) 7 SCC 494
referred to
Para 67
[2008] 9 SCR 1078
relied on
Para 77, 80
[1998] 1 SCR 793
relied on
Para 77, 80
(2014) 14 SCC 444
referred to
Para 91
[2009] 3 SCR 555
relied on
Para 93
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.643
of 2015.
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
37
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.6471-6473 of 2020 And
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.711 of 2022, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 848 Of
2023 In Writ Petition (Civil) No.643 of 2015
Kuldeep Parihar, Dy AG, K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G., B.K. Satija,
Hemant Gupta, Barun Kumar Sinha, Nikhil Goel, Nachiketa Joshi, Gaurav
Dhama, Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.Gs., Gourab Banerjee, P. Vishwanatha
Shetty, V. Giri, Jaideep Gupta, Sanjay Parikh, Vinod Ghai, Dr. Manish
Singhvi, Sr. Advs., K. Parameshwar, (Amicus Curiae), Ms. Mayuri
Raghuvanshi, VP Singh, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Ms. Akanksha Rathore,
Subhro, Milind Kumar, Deepak Prakash, V. N. Raghupathy, Wasim Qadri,
Mohd Akhil, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Rajan Kumar Chourasia,
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Anmol Chandan,
Vatsal Joshi, Annirudh Sharma-(ii), Ishaan Sharma, Dr. N. Visakamurthy,
Kanu Agrawal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kr. Verma,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Amrish Kumar, Mahesh
Thakur, Ms. Geetanjali Bedi, Ms. Vipasha Singh, Ms. Shivani, Gopal
Jha, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek Mohanty, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,
Mahesh P. Shinde, Ms. Rucha A. Pande, M. Veeraragavan, Sandeep
Sudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee
Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Kshitij Singh, Apoorv Kurup, Ms. Kirti
Dadheech, Ojaswa Pathak, Ms. Kavita Jha, James P. Thomas, Ravi
Sagar, P. I. Jose, Naresh K. Sharma, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind Kumar
Tripathi, Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Nikhil Goel, Ms. Naveen
Goel, Ms. Pragati
Neekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Nishant Kumar, Sunando Sir, Anupam
Raina, Krishnanand Pandeya, Harshit Gupta, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa,
Likhi Chand Bonsle, Rahat Bansal, Ms. Komal Mundhra, T. G. Narayanan
Nair, A. Radhakrishnan, Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun
Srivastava, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Niranjan Sahu,
Debabrata Dash, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Ashok Mathur, Mukul Kumar,
Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, M/s. Arputham Aruna
and Co, Mukesh K. Giri, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, K V
Girish Chowdary, T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee,
Ms. Niti Richhariya, Shuvodeep Roy, Sai Shashank, Deepayan Dutta,
Manish Kumar, Sumeer Sodhi, Devashish Tiwari, Gaurav Arora, Ms.
Sujata Kurdukar, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Payal Gupta, Samar
Vijay Singh, Shivang Jain, Ms. Preeti Chauhan, Ms. Purva, Arun Kumar
Jaiswal, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Amrita Verma, Ms. Sabarni Som, Ms.
Pratishtha Vij, Abhinav Mukerji, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Akshay C.
Shrivastava, Shailesh Madiyal, Vaibhav Sabharwal, Akshay Kumar, Rajiv
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Shankar Dvivedi, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, V. N. Raghupathy,
Manendra Pal Gupta, Mrs. Ansha Varma, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs.
Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Ms. Manicka Priya, Riddhi Bose, Sunny
Choudhary, Ankit Mishra, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Shreya Saxena, Ms. Yamini Singh, Sourav
Singh, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ritwik Parikh, Ms.
Anupama Ngangom, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Nirnimesh Dube, Siddhesh
Kotwal, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, Nihar Dharmadhikari,
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms.
Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Shibashish Misra, Ajay Pal, Mayank
Dahiya, Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Sameer
Abhyankar, Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms. Sugandh
Rathore, Sabarish Subramanian, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Vishnu
Unnikrishnan, Naman Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, C Kranthi Kumar, Sriharsha
Peechara, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Ms. Pallavi, Duvvuri Subrahmanya
Bhanu, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Sanjay Kumar, Sunil Kumar Tomar, Pawan,
Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Parijat Sinha, Ms.
Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Urmila Kar Purkayastha, Annant, Ms.
Arushi Mishra, Chirag M. Shroff, Aravindh S., Ms. Uma Bhuvaneswari
C., Abbas, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Ankur Kashyap, Rohit Rajershi, Aman
Bajaj, Gopal Jha, Gaurav Agrawal, Uday B. Dube, Ms. Arti Gupta, Ms.
Kanti, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment of the
Court was delivered:
INDEX*
1.
Introduction to pay commissions .............................. 4
2.
The SNJPC’s Report and the Orders of this Court . 5
3.
Submissions of Counsel.............................................. 7
4.
Principles Evolved for Judicial Pay, Pension
and Allowances.........................................................10
I. Uniformity in Designations and Service
Conditions ................................................................10
II. Separation of Powers and Comparison with
Political Executive .................................................. 11
*Ed. Note : Pagination in the Table is as per the original judgment.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
39
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
III. Independence of the District Judiciary is Part
of the Basic Structure .............................................15
IV. Judicial Independence and Access to
Justice Ensures Implementation of Part III
of the Constitution ..................................................16
V. Equivalence of Judicial Functions of District
Judiciary and Higher Judiciary .............................17
5.0
Recommendations on pay........................................18
5.1
Orders of this Court on SNJPC Recommendations on
Pay .............................................................................21
5.2
Consideration of Recommendations on Pay ..........21
I. Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity
with the All India Pattern (Recommendation
44.1)...........................................................................21
II. New Pay Structure as per Pay Matrix
Model (Recommendation 44.2, 44.3) ..................22
III. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform
Application (Recommendations 44.4-44.6).........23
IV. Increments (Recommendation 44.7, 44.11)..24
V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale
to Pay Matrix System (Recommendations 44.8,
44.9, 44.10)...............................................................25
VI. Application of Recommendations from
01.01. 2016 (Recommendation 44.12) .................26
VII. Status of Compliance of Directions in Order
dated 27.07.2022 (Modification of
Recommendation
No.44.13) ..................................27

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
VIII.DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central
Government (Recommendation 44.14) ...............27
IX. Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge
(Jr Div) (Recommendation 44.15 (i))...................28
X. Delay in Grant of ACP (Recommendation
44.15(ii))....................................................................30
XI. Changes in Percentage of District
Judges (Selection Grade) and District Judges
(Super Time Scale) (Recommendation 44.16)....30
XII. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding
Judges of Industrial Tribunals/Labour
Courts (Recommendation 44.19) .........................31
XIII.Judges in Family Courts in
Maharashtra (Recommendation 44.18) ...............32
XIV. Minimum Remuneration to Special
Judicial Magistrates (Second Class) and
Special Metropolitan Magistrates
(Recommendation 44.19) ....................................... 32
6.
Recommendations on Pension, Gratuity and
Age of Retirement Etc..............................................37
7.
Considerations of Recommendations on
Pension, Gratuity etc................................................40
I. No Change in Percentage of Pension for Retirees
On or After 01.01.2016 (Recommendation
39.1)...........................................................................40
II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers
should be 50% of the Last Drawn Pay ................40
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
41
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in
Pay Matrix (Recommendation No.39.3, 39.4) ....41
IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers
who Retired Prior to 01.01.1996
(Recommendation no. 39.5) ..................................41
V. .......Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while
calculating pension (Recommendation
no. 39.6) ....................................................................42
VI. 
Recommendations 
on 
Family 
Pension
(Recommendation Nos. 4.1 to 4.4) .......................42
VII. Recommendations on Additional Quantum
 Pension/Family Pension (Recommendation
Nos. 21.1 to 21.4) ....................................................43
VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity (Recommendation
Nos. 21.1 to 21.4) ....................................................44
IX. Recommendations on Retirement Age.........45
X. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in
Case of Death ..........................................................45
XI. Recommendations on Assistance to
Pensioners ................................................................45
XII.Recommendations on Abolition of New
Pension Scheme ......................................................46
8. Consequential Directions...............................................50
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. INTRODUCTION TO PAY COMMISSIONS
1. The District Judiciary1 is the backbone of the judicial system.
Vital to the judicial system
is the independence of the judicial officers
1No longer should this Court refer to the District Judiciary as ‘subordinate judiciary’.
Not only is this a misnomer because the District Judge is not per se subordinate to any
other person in the exercise of her jurisdiction but also is disrespectful to the constitutional
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
serving in the District Judiciary. To secure their impartiality, it is important
to ensure their financial security and economic independence. To this
end, at the instance of the All India Judges Association, this Court, in
1993 found the need to state that there must be a Judicial Pay Commission,
separate and independent from the Executive in order to ensure that the
system of checks and balances are in place, and the Judiciary has a say
in their pay and service conditions.2
2. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the First National Judicial
Pay Commission (“FNJPC”) was constituted by the Government of India
by Resolution dated 21.03.1996. The FNJPC, headed by Justice K.
Jagannatha Shetty, submitted a comprehensive report on 11.11.1999.
This comprehensive report contained recommendations on pay, pension
and allowances as well as other service conditions pertaining to the district
judiciary. After prolonged proceedings, on 21.03.2002, this Court approved
the recommendations of the FNJPC pertaining to emoluments with
certain modifications relating to allowances.3 Notably, the
recommendations were accepted with effect from 01.01.1996. This was
because the employees of the Central Government were given the
benefits of the 5th Central Pay Commission from that date.
3. Within the next few years, the Central Government appointed
the 6th Central Pay Commission, and the Commission made its
recommendations which were
accepted from 01.01.2006. To ensure
that the District Judiciary does not lag behind, this Court once again
stepped in at the instance of the very same All India Judges Association.
This Court appointed a One-Person Commission headed by Justice E
Padmanabhan (Retd Judge of the High Court of Madras) by Order dated
28.04.2009. The One-Person Commission once again submitted a report,
which was accepted by this Court by Order dated 20.04.2010.4 The
revised pay scales, which are currently in force, as recommended by
this Commission, were made effective from 01.01.2006.
position of a District Judge. Our Constitution recognizes and protects a District Judge
as a vital cog in the judicial system. Respect ought to be accorded to this institution and
its contribution to the country.
See also,  Upendra Baxi, The judiciary as a resource for Indian democracy, India Seminar,
November 2010 – available at https://www.india-seminar.com/2010/615/
615_upendra_baxi.htm.
2 All India Judges’ Association (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288.
3 All India Judges’ Association (III) v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247.
4All India Judges Association (3) v. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 170.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
43
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
2. THE SNJPC’S REPORT AND THE ORDERS OF
THIS COURT
4. Ten years later, the 7th Central Pay Commission submitted its
report and its recommendations were accepted by the Central
Government with effect from 01.01.2016. Correspondingly, in the present
writ petition, once again at the instance of the All India Judges Association,
this Court has been called upon to intervene and update/upgrade the
service conditions of the judicial officers.
5. This Court by the order dated 09.05.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 643/
2015 appointed the Second National Judicial Pay Commission headed
by Justice P.V. Reddi (Retd.) as its Chairman with Senior Advocate R
Basant (Former Judge) as its Member5. Pursuant to the order of this
Hon’ble Court, the Government of India, by its Resolution dated
10.11.20176, constituted the Second National Judicial Pay Commission
(“Commission/SNJPC”). As per the Resolution, the terms of reference
of the Commission are as follows:
(a) To evolve the principles which should 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 and
UTs taking into account the total packet of benefits available
to them and make suitable recommendations including post-
retirement benefits such as pension, etc.
having regard among
other relevant factors, to the existing relativities in the pay
structure between the officers belonging to subordinate
judicial services vis-à-vis other civil servants and mechanism
for redressal of grievances in this regard.
(c) To examine the work methods and work environment as
also the variety of allowance and benefits in kind that are
available to judicial officers in addition to pay and to suggest
rationalisation and simplification thereof with a view to
promoting efficiency in judicial administration, optimising the
size of judiciary, etc. and to remove anomalies created in
implementation of earlier recommendations.
5 All India Judges Association. v. Union of India, (2019) 12 SCC 314.
6 Notified vide Notification No. 19018/01/2017 dated 16.11.2017 by the Department
of Justice.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
(d) To consider and recommend such interim relief as it
considers just and proper to all categories of judicial officers
of all the States/Union Territories. The interim relief, if
recommended, shall have to be fully adjusted against and
included in the package which may become admissible to the
judicial officers on the final recommendations of the
Commission.
(e) To recommend the mechanism for setting up of a permanent
mechanism to review the pay and service conditions of
members of subordinate judiciary periodically by an
independent commission exclusively constituted for the
purpose and the composition of such commission should
reflect adequate representation on behalf of the judiciary.
6. It is seen from the Report of the Commission that it held region-
wise consultative conferences in the cities of Guwahati, Mumbai, Kolkata,
Kochi, Delhi, Chandigarh, Chennai, Lucknow, Bhopal, Visakhapatnam
and Srinagar where long deliberations took place with the representatives
of the All India Judges’ Association, All India Retired Judges’ Association,
State Associations, officials of the Registry and deputed officers of High
Courts and senior government officers. A perusal of the Report indicates
that the Commission has analyzed the representations from various
sources and periodically consulted with several experts while preparing
working sheets and calculations.
7. After wide consultation, the Commission realized a need for
interim relief to be granted to judicial officers as their pay had not been
increased for more than 10 years. Thus, they submitted a Report on
Interim Relief to this Court 09.03.2018. Considering that the judicial
officers were without updated/upgraded pay, this Court, by order dated
27.03.2018, directed the States and the Union of India to implement the
recommendations of the Commission with regard to interim relief.
8. Subsequently, on 29.01.2020, the Commission submitted its Final
Report to this Court. The Report has recommendations which cover
Pay Structure (Volume I), Pension and Family Pension (Volume III) and
Allowances (Volume IV). A separate part of the report viz., Part II
deals with the issue of establishing a permanent mechanism to determine
subjects of service conditions of the District Judiciary.
9. This Court took cognizance of the Report on 28.02.2020. For
the assistance of the Court, amici curiae were appointed. The States
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
45
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
and the Union of India were directed to file their objections, if any, to the
Report. The Court observed that over the years, the primary objection
to the implementation of the various directions concerning the service
conditions of the district judiciary is the alleged paucity of financial
resources, and rejected this objection even before the States could raise
it.
3. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
10. The Amicus Curiae, K Parameshwar placed the
recommendations of the Commission and its reasoning before this Court.
Detailed notes of submissions have been filed by the amicus curiae
tabulating the recommendations and supplementing the same with
additional reasoning. He also detailed the objections put forward by the
States and the Union and rebutted them with clarity.
11. The Amicus Curiae also laid stress on the principles on which
the recommendations of the Commission draw their strength. He broadly
suggested five principles for the consideration of the Court. Firstly, he
submitted that the independence of the district judiciary is part of the
Basic Structure of the Constitution. He stated that the judgments of the
Court, thus far, have recognized the principle of independence of judiciary
only in the context of the High Courts and the Supreme Court and
submitted that this principle ought to equally apply to the District Judiciary.
12. He then submitted that the principle of
independence of the
judiciary is an integral part of Part III of the Constitution, as it ensures a
guarantee to a fair trial. He argued that therefore, the independence of
the judiciary must be seen as a guarantee under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
13. The third principle, in his submission, was that the doctrine of
inherent powers, as noticed by this Court in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union
of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502 and suggested by the Report of the Task
Force on Judicial Impact Assessment (chaired by Justice (Retd) M
Jagannadha Rao) would require the Judiciary to compel payment of
reasonable sums of money to carry out its constitutionally mandated
responsibilities. To this end, he also relied on Article 50 of the
Constitution which mandates that “The State shall take steps to separate
the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.”
14. He then submitted, relying on the Order dated 05.04.20237
passed by this Court in the review proceedings, that there is an
7Hereinafter, “Review Order”.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
equivalence of core judicial function between Judicial Officers in the
District Judiciary and the Judges of the High Court. Therefore, he
submitted that the increase in pay of the High Court judges must equally
reflect in the increase of pay of judicial officers of the District Judiciary.
15. Lastly, he submitted that in a unified judicial system, the service
conditions, designations etc. must be uniform across the country. He
relied on the judgment of this Court in All India Judges Association v.
Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288 as well as the reports of the FNJPC
and SNJPC to contend that the uniformity must be maintained across
the country in terms of pay and designation of the District Judiciary.
16. The Petitioners, i.e., the All India Judges Association were
represented by Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate. He supported the
Report of the SNJPC and supported the arguments made by the amicus
curiae. He also brought to the attention of this Court a recent decision
in Director, KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani (2023) SCC Online SC 401 to
defend the recommendation of the Commission on the accrual of last
increment for the purposes of pension. He also sought to support the
recommendation of the Commission on additional quantum of pension to
be given from the age of 75 years by contending that the same is not
only reasonable but is also already given by a number of States from an
even younger age. In this regard, he also submitted
that the age of
retirement of district judges is lower than that of High Court and Supreme
Court judges and therefore, they must be entitled to retiral benefits at a
younger age.
17. The arguments on behalf of the All India Retired Judges
Association were put forward by V Giri, Senior Advocate. While
supporting the contentions made by the Amicus Curiae as well as Gourab
Banerji, Senior Advocate, he reiterated the need for an urgent
implementation of the Report of the SNJPC, especially in respect of
pension to be paid to retired officers.
18. The counter-arguments were led by KM Nataraj, the Ld.
Additional Solicitor General of India who appeared for the State of Uttar
Pradesh. He was also supplemented by Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG for
Tamil Nadu, Ms Pratishtha Vij, counsel for the State of Himachal Pradesh,
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Counsel for the State of Maharashtra,
Nachiketa Joshi, Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, Ajay Pal,
Counsel for the State of Punjab, Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Counsel for
the State of West Bengal, Shuvodeep Roy, Counsel for the State of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
47
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
Assam, Shailesh Madiyal, Counsel for the UT of Jammu and Kashmir,
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Counsel for the State of Manipur,
Deepanwita Priyanka, Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat,
B.K. Satija, AAG for the State of Haryana, Kuldeep Singh Parihar,
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand appearing for the States.
19. They firstly contended that the multiplier of 2.81 cannot be
applied to the District Judiciary across the cadres. It is their argument
that the 7th CPC recommended a graded pay increase across different
cadres of the employees of the Central Government and therefore, the
same has to be applied even for the judiciary. Thereafter, they once
again argued that the States do not have sufficient financial resources to
meet the increase in pay as suggested by the SNJPC. As regards the
recommendation on increment to be accrued for the purposes of pension
to the judicial officer in spite of her retirement, they contended that since
the applicable Rules in their State do not provide for such accrual for
Government Employees, the same cannot be given to judicial officers.
The States also opposed the grant of retirement gratuity as suggested by
the SNJPC. They argued that their State Rules which are prevalent
provide for a uniform rate across cadres and services in the State and
therefore, the recommendation cannot be accepted by them. Lastly, they
contended that
the minimum eligibility for Family Pension must be less
than Rs. 30,000, as suggested by the Commission.
20. Before considering the recommendations of the SNJPC on
pay, pension, gratuity, age of retirement etc., it is necessary to consider
certain principles concerning judiciary that have a direct bearing on our
decision on the recommendations.
4. PRINCIPLES EVOLVED FOR JUDICIAL PAY, PENSION
AND ALLOWANCES
21. This Court has dealt with three different Judicial Pay
Commission and has evolved certain principles, which form the
underpinning of judicial pay, pension and allowances. The first principle
is that a unified judiciary requires uniform designations and service
conditions of judicial officers across the country. The second principle
is that the independence of the judiciary requires that pay of judicial
officers must be stand-alone and not compared to that of staff of the
political executive or the legislature. The third principle is that the
independence of the judiciary, which includes the District Judiciary, is
part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The fourth principle is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
that the access to an independent judiciary enforces fundamental rights
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The fifth principle is that
the essential function of all judicial officers in the District Judiciary and
judges of the High Court and this Court is essentially the same.
I.Uniformity in Designations and Service Conditions
22. India has a unified judiciary under the scheme of the
Constitution. A unified judiciary necessarily entails that the service
conditions of judges of one state are equivalent to similar posts of judges
of other states. The purpose of this constitutional scheme is to ensure
that the judicial system is uniform, effective and efficient in its functioning.
Efficient functioning necessarily requires judges of caliber and capacity
to be provided with the right incentives and promotion opportunities to
maintain the high level of functioning of the judiciary.
23. This Court in All India Judges Association (II)8 has noted
the position of law and observed that uniform designations and hierarchy,
with uniform service conditions are unavoidable necessary
consequences. It was held:
“14. … Secondly, the judiciary in this country is a unified
institution judicially though not administratively.Hence
uniform designations and hierarchy, with uniform service
conditions are unavoidable necessary consequences. 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.”
II. Separation of Powers and Comparison with Political
Executive
24. Separation of powers demands that the officers of the
Judiciary be treated separately and distinct from the staff of the legislative
and executive wings. It must be remembered the judges are not employees
of the State but are holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial
power. In that sense, they are only comparable to members of the
legislature and ministers in the executive. Parity, thus, cannot be claimed
between staff of the legislative wing and executive wing with officers
8All India Judges Association (II) v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 14.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
49
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
of the judicial wing. This Court in All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union
of India,9 explained the distinction and held that those who exercise
the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators and the Judges,
and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in
implementing their decisions. Thus, there cannot be any objection that
judicial officers receive pay which is not at par with executive staff. In
this context, it may also be remembered that Article 50 of the Constitution
directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the
Executive.
25. This distinction is also important because judicial independence
from the executive and the legislature requires the judiciary to have a
say in matters of their finances. This Court has previously noted that
theoretically, allowing the Executive to decide the pay of the judiciary
may lead to unintended consequences.10 Therefore, to secure true
independence of the judiciary, this Court has recognized that the pay of
judicial officers is separate and distinct from the pay of staff of other
wings of the State. This, it may be noted, is nothing but an articulation of
the doctrine of inherent powers. This doctrine mandates that the judiciary
must possess the inherent power to “compel payment of those sums
of money which are reasonable and necessary to carry out its
mandated responsibilities, and its powers and
duties to administer
justice.”11 This doctrine is only the logical conclusion of separation of
powers and ensures that the independence of the judiciary is secured.
26. The submission of the States that there is a paucity of financial
resources must be examined from this aspect of the matter. The States
and the Union have repeatedly stated that the burden on the financial
resources of the States/Union due to the Report of the SNJPC is
significant and therefore the Report cannot be implemented. Without
the doctrine of inherent powers, any de-funding of the Judiciary cannot
be repelled.
9All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India,  (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 7.
10In All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India,  (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 10: “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 the judiciary.”
11Commonwealth ex rel Carroll vs. Tate, 274 A.2d. 193. Approved by this Court in Brij
Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502 at para 110 – 111.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
27. Apart from this, Judicial Officers have been working without
a pay revision for nearly 15 years. A pay revision has been recommended
in accordance with the law laid down by this Court and a report submitted
by a Judicial Pay Commission after considering this very objection. This
Court has also examined this issue of paucity of financial resources on
at least three occasions in these very proceedings. In the Order dated
28.02.2020, which took cognizance of the Report of the SNJPC, this
Court stated that it hoped that “the same objections, which have been
rejected by this Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of
India (1993) 4 SCC 288, will not be re-agitated. The Court in the
aforesaid judgment observed that compared to the other plan and
non-plan expenditures, the financial burden caused on account of
the directions given therein are negligible.” 12 However, the States
and the Union raised this objection in their affidavits before this Court.
28. After going through the affidavits of the States and the Union,
this Court on 27.07.2022 found that in contrast to the 7th Central Pay
Commission, which was implemented from 01.01.2016, judicial officers
have not received any similar benefit. Thus, the Court held that “there is
a need to at least implement the revised pay structure immediately
so as to alleviate the sufferings of the judicial officers.”13 The Court,
after considering the objections of the Union
and the State rejected the
same and accepted the revision of pay structure as recommended by
the SNJPC. Aggrieved by the acceptance of the Report, the Union filed
a review petition before this Court. This Court by Order dated 05.04.2023
dismissed the review petitions and found that the financial implications
cannot be considered as excessive in view of the information given by
the SNJPC.14 Still, the States and the Union have raised this objection
after its express rejection twice over. The rejection of their objection is
also reiterated. Judicial Officers cannot be left in the lurch for prolonged
periods of time without a revision of pay on an alleged paucity of financial
resources.
29. This Court in its Review Order dated 05.04.2023 has explained
this position in the following words:
“4. In view of the above discussion, the issue is whether there
is any compelling need to reduce the quantum of increase
12 Order dated 28.02.2020 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 7.
13 Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 13.
14 Order dated 05.04.2023 in Review Petition (Diary No) 34780/2022 at para 19.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
proposed by applying a lower multiplier so as to marginally
reduce the gap between entry level IAS officers (in Junior
and Senior time scales) and Judicial Officers at the first two
levels (Civil Judge, Junior and Senior Divisions). Such an
exercise is not warranted for more than one reason. Firstly,
the initial starting pay must be such as to offer an incentive
to talented youngsters to join judicial service. Secondly, the
application of a multiplier/ factor less than 2.81 would result
in a deviation from the principle adopted by SNJPC that the
extent of increase of pay of judicial officers must be
commensurate with the increase in the pay of High Court
judges. This principle has been accepted by this Court by
approving the recommendations of the SNJPC. Therefore, there
is no valid reason to depart from the principle applied by
JPC that the pay of judicial officers should be higher when
compared to All India Service Officers of the corresponding
rank. This principle has been approved by this Court in AIJA
(2002) Thirdly, in All India Judges Association (II) v. Union
of India this court rejected the comparison of service
conditions of the judiciary with that of the administrative
executive:
“7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated in
the judgment under review while dealing with the same
contentions raised there. We cannot however, help observing
that the
failure to realize the distinction between the judicial
service and the other services is at the bottom of the hostility
displayed by the review petitioners to the directions given in
the judgment. The judicial service is not service in the sense
of ‘employment’. The Judges are not employees. As members
of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of
the State. They are holders of public offices in the same way
as the members of the council of ministers and the members
of the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such as
ours, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitute
the three pillars of the State, what is intended to be conveyed
is that the three essential functions of the State are entrusted
to the three organs of the State and each one of them in turn
represents the authority of the State. However, those who
exercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
and the Judges, and not the members of their staff who
implement or assist in implementing their decisions. The
council of ministers or the political executive is different from
the secretarial staff or the administrative executive which
carries out the decisions of the political executive. Similarly,
the Legislators are different from the legislative staff. So also
the Judges from the judicial staff. The parity is between the
political executive, the Legislators and the Judges and not
between the Judges and the administrative executive. In some
democracies like the USA, members of some State judiciaries
are elected as much as the members of the legislature and the
heads of the State. The Judges, at whatever level they may
be, represent the State and its authority unlike the
administrative executive or the members of the other services.
The members of the other services, therefore, cannot be placed
on a par with the members of the judiciary, either
constitutionally or functionally.””
III. Independence of the District Judiciary is Part of the
Basic Structure
30. This Court has repeatedly held that the independence of the
judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.15 However,
the pronouncements of the Court have been in the context of the High
Court and the Supreme Court and not in the context of the District
Judiciary. The District Judiciary performs an important role in upholding
the rule of law. As
noted in the Review Order dated 05.04.2023:
“15. The District Courts and courts forming a part of the district
judiciary discharge a prominent role in preserving the rule of
law. Public confidence in the judicial system sustains the
credibility of the judiciary. The district judiciary has a
significant role in generating and fostering public confidence.
The standards of ethics and professionalism expected of judges
are more rigorous than those applied to other services/
professions. Ensuring adequate emoluments, pension and
proper working conditions for the members of the district
15 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87; Supreme Court Advocates-on-
Record Assn. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441; Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, In
re, (1998) 7 SCC 739; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India,
(2016) 5 SCC 1.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
53
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
judiciary has an important bearing on the efficiency of
judicial administration and the effective discharge of the
unique role assigned to the judiciary.”
31. The independence of the District Judiciary must also be equally
a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Without impartial and
independent judges in the District Judiciary, Justice, a preambular goal16
would remain illusory. The District Judiciary is, in most cases, also the
Court which is most accessible to the litigant. The Amicus Curiae
submitted that on a single day, the District Judiciary handled nearly 11.3
lakh cases. It was seen that during the period of the pandemic as well,
the District Judiciary was yet efficient and undertook its functions to
ensure that justice is delivered in a timely manner. It is thus important to
recognize that the District Judiciary is a vital part of the independent
judicial system, which is, in turn, part of the Basic Structure of the
Constitution.
IV. Judicial Independence and Access to Justice Ensures
Implementation of Part III of the Constitution
32. Any interpretation of Part III of the Constitution would also
require that effective and speedy disposal of cases be done by an
independent District Judiciary. This Court has repeatedly held that the
right of free and fair trial forms part of Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution.17 For instance, in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap
Sudan
[(2016) 8 SCC 509, para 31], this Court recognized that “access to justice”
inheres in Articles 14 and 21. This Court held:
“31. If “life” implies not only life in the physical sense but a
bundle of rights that makes life worth living, there is no juristic
or other basis for holding that denial of “access to justice”
will not affect the quality of human life so as to take access
to justice out of the purview of right to life guaranteed
under Article 21. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding
that access to justice is indeed a facet of right to life
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. We need only
add that access to justice may as well be the facet of the right
16 The Preamble guarantees that “JUSTICE, social, economic and political;” shall be
secured to all the citizens of India.
17 See: Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81,
Commissioner of Police Delhi v. Registrar, Delhi High Court [(1996) 6 SCC 323, para
16]; Mohd. Hussain v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2012) 9 SCC 408, para 1.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution which
guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws
to not only citizens but non-citizens also…
… Absence of any adjudicatory mechanism or the inadequacy
of such mechanism, needless to say, is bound to prevent those
looking for enforcement of their right to equality before laws
and equal protection of the laws from seeking redress and
thereby negate the guarantee of equality before laws or
equal protection of laws and reduce it to a mere teasing
illusion.”
33. The right of fair trial and access to justice, as contemplated by
this Court, is not limited to the physical access to a Court. The right must
also include all the necessary prerequisites of a Court, i.e., the
infrastructure, and an unbiased, impartial, and independent judge. At the
cost of repetition, for most litigants in this country, as the only
physicallyaccessible institution for accessing justice is the District
Judiciary, the independence of district judiciary assumes even greater
significance.
34. One may go to the extent to state that the rights of “access to
justice” and “fair trial” cannot be exercised by an individual without an
independent judiciary. Further, without fair and speedy trial, the remaining
rights, including fundamental and constitutional rights will not be enforced
in a manner known to law. If these instrumental rights themselves are
hindered, then all other rights within
the Constitution would not be
enforceable. 
V. Equivalence of Judicial Functions of District Judiciary
and Higher Judiciary
35. The essential function of the District Judiciary, as also the
function of the High Courts and this Court is to administer justice
impartially and independently. This Court in its Review Order observed:
“14. Fourthly, the argument that an uniform IoR would equate
the district courts with constitutional courts is erroneous. A
uniform multiplier is used for a uniform increment in pay and
not for the purpose of uniform pay in itself. All Judges across
the hierarchy of courts discharge the same essential function
of adjudicating disputes impartially and independently. Thus,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
55
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
it would not be appropriate to apply graded IoR when SNJPC
has chosen to uniformly apply the multiplier.”
36. Together, the Courts constitute the unified judicial system
performing for the core and essential function of administering justice.
To be truly unified both in form and in substance, there must be integration
in terms of pay, pension and other service conditions between the District
Judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court. To this end, under
Article 125 and 221 of the Constitution, the salaries etc. payable to the
judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court are fixed by law as
made by Parliament. The salaries for judges of the High Court are the
same across the country by virtue of the High Court Judges (Salaries
and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954.
37. Given that in the hierarchy of the unified judicial system a
Judge of the High Court is placed above a District Judge, it follows that
a District Judge cannot have more pay more than a High Court judge.
Therefore, the maximum ceiling of pay that a District Judge may earn is
the salary of a High Court judge which is fixed under the aforementioned
statute. Once the salary of the District Judge is pegged against the High
Court judge, it thus follows that any increase in the salary of the judges
of the High Court must reflect in the same proportion to the judges in
the District Judiciary. In the Review Order,
this Court observed:
“16. The legitimacy of the principle that the increase of pay
of the judicial officers must be commensurate with the
quantum of increase in the pay of High Court judges has
been raised previously and stands judicially settled. Therefore,
any objection to the IoR on the ground that it has to be lower
than that adopted for increase in the pay of the judges of the
High Court is without cogent basis.”
38. Having considered the constitutional foundations on the basis
of which the recommendations of the SNJPC are to be considered, we
will now proceed to examine the recommendations with respect to pay,
pension, gratuity etc.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON PAY
39. We will first deal with the recommendation of SNJPC on pay
structure. A summary of the relevant recommendations ofSNJPC on
pay are tabulated hereinbelow:

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Recommendation 
No. 
Recommendation 
44.1

States/High Courts shall take immediate steps to re-designate the officers in 
conformity with the All India pattern as recommended by FNJPC i.e. those who 
have not done it so far. 
44.2

The new pay structure shall be as per the ‘Pay Matrix’ pattern on the model of VII 
CPC as against the ‘Master Pay Scale’ pattern so as to remove the anomalies and 
to rationalize the pay structure and to ensure due benefit to the judicial officers of 
all cadres within the framework of established principles 
44.3
The categorization of the Judicial officers shall be based on their status in the 
functional hierarchy reflected in horizontal range in Table-I below para 13.1 of the 
Report 
44.4, 44.5

The initial pay for each rank of officer is about 2.81 times the existing entry pay of 
each rank except J-6 and J-7, which is in the same proportion of increase as that of 
the High Court Judge. Accordingly, the first row in the horizontal range (J-1 to J-
7) denotes the entry pay for fresh recruits/appointees in that level. 
44.6

The new Mean Pay percentage vis-a-vis the salary of High Court Judge in relation 
to each cadre and grade as per p.182 of the Report 
44.7

The annual increment shall be @3% cumulative, meaning thereby that the 
increment @3% has to be calculated on the previous years basic pay instead of 
fixed amount increments recommended by FNJPC and JPC. 
44.8 
In the Pay Matrix pattern, there shall be now 37 stages instead of 44 
44.9 
The fitment/migration of the existing officers shall be as reflected in Table II at 
para 13.3, p.73 
44.10

The procedure for migration/fitment of the serving Judicial officers and also the 
procedure for fixation of pay on promotion shall be as explained in paras 13.5 and 
13.8. 
44.11(i)
As regards the date of accrual of increment, there shall be no change in the 
existing system which is being followed in various states/UTs i.e. the increment 
shall be once in a year as per the date of appointment or promotion or financial 
upgradation. 
44.11(ii)

The retiring Judicial officers shall have the benefit of increment becoming due the 
next day following their retirement. That increment shall be for the purposes of 
pension only and shall be subject to vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
57
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
44.12 
The pay of the judicial officers of all ranks/grades in the new pay matrix/pay 
structure shall be effective from 01.01.2016 
44.13 
Arrears of Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016 shall be paid during the calendar year 2020, 
after adjusting the interim relief already paid under the Interim Report dated 
09.03.2018. 
44.14
The present practice of sanction of DA at the rates prescribed by Central 
Government from time to time shall continue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court 
may issue directions that the benefit of revised DA in conformity with the 
orders issued by the Central Government from time to time shall be paid to the 
Judicial officers without delay, and in any case, not later than 3 months from 
the date of issuance of the order by the Central Government. The benefit of 
revised rates of DA shall accrue from the effective date as specified in the 
Order issued by Central Government in this behalf. 
44.15(i) 
Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) shall not be based on the application 
of the existing norm of seniority-cum-merit. There shall be relaxed norms for 
assessing the performance in terms of output. The scrutiny shall be for the 
limited purpose of ascertaining whether there is anything positively adverse 
such as consistently poor/unsatisfactory performance or adverse report of 
serious nature leading to the inference that the Officer is unfit to have the 
benefit of ACP. 
44.15(ii) 
If for any reason, delay in grant of ACP goes beyond one year, one additional 
increment for every year delay shall be granted subject to adjustment while 
drawing the arrears on grant of ACP. 
44.16(i)  
The posts of District Judges (Selection Grade) shall be increased to 35% of the 
cadre strength as against the existing 25%, and the District Judges (Super 
Time Scale) shall be increased to 15%
of the cadre strength as against the 
existing 10%. It will be effective from 01.01.2020 
44.16(ii) 
The upgradation benefit shall be given to the District Judges by applying the 
principle of seniority-cum-merit instead of meritcum-seniority. 
44.16(iii)  
If the post remains or continues for three years it shall form part of cadre 
strength. 
44.17 
The Pay Revision benefit which is already available to the Presiding Judges of 
Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts (outside the regular cadre of subordinate 
judiciary) in view of the recommendation of JPC, shall be extended to them 
also simultaneously with Judicial Officers of regular cadre without 
administrative delays.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
44.18 
The Judges of the Family Courts in Maharashtra who belong to a separate 
cadre have to be extended the benefit of pay of District Judge (Selection 
Grade) and District Judge (Super Time Scale) in the same ratio as prescribed 
for regular District Judges. The High Court to propose the minimum age for 
grant of Selection Grade, if considered necessary. The Principal Judge Family 
Court (ex-cadre) to be allotted quarters preferentially, in General Pool 
Accommodation. 
44.19 
Special Judicial Magistrates (Second Class)/Special Metropolitan Magistrates 
(dealing with petty criminal cases) shall get minimum remuneration of 
Rs.30,000/- per month in addition to conveyance allowance of Rs.5,000/- per 
month w.e.f. 01.04.2019 and to be suitably revised every five years. 
5.1 ORDERS OF THIS COURT ON SNJPC
RECOMMENDATIONS ON PAY
40. This Court has subsequently passed three detailed orders dealing
with the objections of the States and the Union and rejected the same.
The first is Order dated 27.07.2022,18 the second is Order dated
18.01.2023 and the final one is Order dated 05.04.2023. In the first Order,
this Court accepted the revision of pay structure as recommended by
SNJPC. By Order dated 18.01.2023, this Court granted additional time
to some States to comply with the Order dated 27.07.2022. Thereafter,
some States and the Union filed review petitions against the Order dated
27.07.2022 passed by this Court. This Court
dismissed the reviews on
05.04.2023.19 Thus, most of the recommendations of the SNJPC on the
pay structure have become final.
5.2 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON
PAY
41. Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on pay are
considered hereinbelow.
I. Redesignation of Judicial Officers in Conformity with the
All India Pattern (Recommendation 44.1)
42. As stated above, in India, the judiciary is unified. The
designations of judges, therefore, ought to be uniform across the country.
In this regard, the FNJPC suggested the following nomenclature to be
adopted pan-India:
18Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 17.
19Order dated 05.04.2023 in Review Petition (Diary No) 34780/2022 at para 19.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
59
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
i.
Civil Judge (Jr. Div);
ii.  Civil Judge (Sr. Div);
iii. District Judge.
43. A thorough examination by the SNJPC revealed that these
designations have not been adopted in few states. It was stated by the
Commission that the State of Kerala still designates its judges as Munsiff
and ‘Subordinate Judge’. In the North-Eastern States too, it was seen
that there was some divergence of designation. Uniformity would require
these to be amended in order to be brought under the same umbrella.
Pertinently, this recommendation had been accepted in the FNJPC by
virtue of judgment in All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India,
(1993) 4 SCC 288.20 We may only reiterate that this direction be followed
by the High Courts and all High Courts amend their designations in
conformity with the suggestions of the FNJPC and SNJPC.
44. It is also relevant to note that in light of the pay matrix suggested
by the SNJPC, without uniform designations, issues may arise in the
future for fitment of the different designations which are used in the
different states. Such complications ought to be avoided by this Court.
45. This Court thus accepts the recommendation of the
Commission. Consequently, the High Courts are directed to ensure that
the designation of judicial officers is uniformly the same as mentioned in
the above paragraphs.
II. New Pay Structure as per Pay Matrix Model
(Recommendation 44.2,
44.3)
46. The SNJPC has recommended that the pay matrix model,
which was adopted by the 7th Central Pay Commission be adopted for
Judicial Officers as well. This is desirable as it simplifies the matter of
pay for judges. Notably, this Court has already accepted this
recommendation by Order dated 27.07.2022.21 This has been confirmed
in Order dated 05.04.2023. As the recommendation of the SNJPC is
only to bring the pay structure in conformity with the 7th Central Pay
Commission, there cannot be any objection on these recommendations.
Thus, it is directed that the pay structure of the Judicial Officers be
modified suitably, reflecting the recommendations suggested by the
SNJPC.
20 All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 at para 19 and 20.
21Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 17.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
III. Multiplier of 2.81 and Its Uniform Application
(Recommendations 44.4-44.6)
47. The Multiplier/Index of Rationalization of 2.81 has been
suggested by the SNJPC to be applied to all cadres of judicial officers.
The objection of the States and the Union is that the IoR of 2.81 has not
been suggested by the 7th CPC to all cadres of officers. It is their say
that when the Central Pay Commission adopted a graduated fitment
factor ranging from 2.57 for entry level officers to 2.81 for officers of
the level of Secretary to the Government of India, the judicial officers
could not have been granted a uniform multiplier/IoR of 2.81.
48. Their submission is erroneous because, as stated above, the
pay of judicial officers is to be increased commensurate to the pay of
the Judges of High Courts. When the judges of the High Courts were
granted a multiplier of 2.81, the judicial officers were also to be granted
the same multiplier. This has been the precedent set by the previous
Judicial Pay Commissions and endorsed by this Court repeatedly.22
49. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that this Court has
already rejected the objections of the States and the Union and
consequently accepted the multiplier/Index of Rationalization of 2.81 in
Order dated 27.07.202223 and Order dated 05.04.202324. As stated above,
the principled basis of the acceptance is that the pay of judicial officers
in the District Judiciary can only be
based on the pay of Judges of the
High Court. This is because the Judiciary is independent from the
Executive and as such, all aspects including pay cannot be based on the
pay granted to the officers of the Executive Wing.
50. It is thus reiterated that the recommendation that the multiplier/
index of rationalization as suggested by the SNJPC be accepted.
Consequently, it is directed that the pay of the judicial officers be increased
as per the Table-I annexed to the Order dated 27.07.2022.
IV. Increments (Recommendation 44.7, 44.11)
51. The SNJPC did not recommend any change in the existing
system of accrual of increment once a year as per the date of appointment
22See Para 15.50 of FNJPC report and Para 4.8 of the Padmanabhan Commission
Report. Also see, the Orders of this Court in All India Judges Association v Union of
India (2002) 4 SCC 247 and All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2010) 14
SCC 720 at para 6.
23 Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at para 15 - 16.
24Order dated 05.04.2023 in Review Petition (Diary No) 34780/2022 at para 19.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
61
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
or promotion or the date of financial upgradation. The sole change it
suggested was that judicial officers should have the benefit of increment
falling due the next day following their retirement. The Commission
suggested that this benefit of an additional increment shall be for the
purposes of pension only and shall be subject to a vertical ceiling of Rs.
2,24,100/-.
52. An additional increment can be given to a retiring officer when
he is not in service on the date of accrual. This is because the increment
is a benefit for the year of service already rendered. Therefore, the last
pay, for the purposes of calculation of pension should include the
increment payable to the judicial officer.
53. Three sets of decisions had been rendered by different High
Courts regarding this. The first view, which was taken by the High Courts
of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Allahabad, is that when the increment
becomes due the next day after retirement, the employee ought not to
be denied the benefit of the increment for the purposes of pay. The
second view, which was taken by the High Courts of Madras, Orissa
and Delhi is that the increment would accrue to officers only for the
purpose of pension alone. The third view, taken by the Andhra Pradesh,
Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts is that the increment cannot
be granted to the officers.
54. The law has now been settled by this Court in
a recent judgment
Director, KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani.25 This Court approved the
judgment of the High Court of Allahabad’s view in Nand Vijay Singh v.
Union of India26 it was held:
“24. … In the case of a government servant retiring on 30th
of June the next day on which increment falls due/becomes
payable looses significance and must give way to the right of
the government servant to receive increment due to satisfactory
services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in a
manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
55. In such circumstances, the recommendations of the
Commission in so far as it notionally grants the increment for the purposes
of pension is completely justified. As a consequence of the acceptance
25 (2023) SCC Online SC 401 at para 18.
26 Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India (2021) SCC Online All 1090 at para 24.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
of the recommendation, the calculation of pension must notionally include
the increment for the purposes of calculation of pension. This will also
obviate any confusion. It is therefore directed that the High Courts amend
the applicable rule to state that the increment which becomes due to the
judicial officer on the day after his retirement may be notionally included
in the calculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to the vertical
ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-.
V. Fitment and Migration from Master Pay Scale to Pay
Matrix System (Recommendations 44.8, 44.9, 44.10)
56. The Court notes that the Commission has recommended the
formula and method to ensure that the migration from the master pay
scale to the pay matrix system is smooth. The Commission has devised
the follow fitment/migration formula:
“i. Multiply the existing pay by the factor of 2.81.
ii. The figure so arrived at to be located in Table-I, in
relation to the Level applicable to the Officer (i.e., J1, J2
etc.)
iii. Where there is an identical figure available in Table-I
at the corresponding stage of the relevant level, the new
revised pay shall be fixed at that stage.
iv. Where there is no identical figure available, the new
revised pay has to be fixed at the very next higher stage in
that level in Table-I.”
57. In order to make matters clear, the Commission has also given
illustrations so as to simplify the fitment/migration formula for the relevant
authorities. These illustrations ought to be considered by the authorities
while encoding the rules for the migration to the pay matrix system.27 It
may be noted that the Commission has submitted a Corrigendum to its
Report in March 2021 which has removed certain arithmetical mistakes
from the Fitment Table. This is reflected in Part III of the Report dated
March 2021.
58. It may be noted that a similar formula and illustrations have
also been devised for fixation of pay of judicial officers who were
promoted on or after 01.01.2016 in the following terms:
27See Paras 13.5 at p.75 – 80 and Para 13.8 at p.81 – 82 of the Report.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
63
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
“i. Identify the level and the basic pay in Table I on the
date of promotion.
 ii. Add one increment in that level itself in terms of FR-22.
iii. The figure so arrived at or the next closest figure in the
level to which s(he) is promoted will be the new pay on
promotion.”
The examples provided by the Commission also proceed thereafter
to lend clarity to the formula for promotes as well.
59. While accepting this recommendation for fitment/migration
as amended by the Corrigendum dated March 2021, it is also noted that
the examples must form part of the relevant rules that are required to be
encoded by the High Courts, the States and the Union. Therefore, we
accept the recommendation and direct the authorities to implement the
same keeping in mind the examples that have been given by the
Commission, as stated above.
VI. Application of Recommendations from 01.01.2016
(Recommendation 44.12)
60. The 7th Central Pay Commission came into force from
01.01.2016. However, the last pay revision of the judicial officers was
with effect from 01.01.2006. More than 17 years have passed since the
judicial officers have received a pay revision. Noting this, the
recommendation must be accepted by this Court. Pertinently, this has
already been noticed by this Court in its Order dated 27.07.2022.28 Further,
the previous Judicial Pay Commissions had also recommended revision
of pay with effect from
01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively. No
objection can therefore be made regarding the application of the pay
structure from 01.01.2016. This recommendation thus merits acceptance.
Thus, it is directed that the benefits of the recommendations as regards
pay be given effect to with effect from 01.01.2016.
VII. Status of Compliance of Directions in Order dated
27.07.2022 (Modification of Recommendation No.44.13)
61. While the Commission suggested that the arrears of pay be
given during the calendar year 2020, this Court after considering the
submissions of the Union and the State that the payment of arrears at
28Order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No.643/2015 at Para 21.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
64
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
one go may not be possible and by Order dated 27.07.2022 directed that
the payments be made in three separate installments. As per this Order
as well, the final installment was payable by 30.06.2023. States had
already sought extension of time to complete payments in the first two
instalments. Considering the grievances of the States, by Order dated
18.01.2023, this Court directed:
“All the States/Union Territories which have made payment
of only the first installment or the first two installments and
the States and Union Territories which have come up with
applications for extension of time, are permitted to make
payment of arrears, at least within the time indicated in this
order. The States and Union Territories which have not yet
made payment of the first installment, shall make payment of
the first installment by 31.03.2023. These States and Union
Territories, as well as those who have already made payment
of the first installment, shall make payment of the second
installment by 30.04.2023. The third and final installment
shall be made by 30.06.2023.”
VIII. DA on basis of Rates fixed by Central Government
(Recommendation 44.14)
62. The recommendation of the SNJPC is that Dearness
Allowance may be paid at the rate fixed by the Central Government. It
may be noted that the Commission has found that the rates fixed by the
Central Government are normally accepted by the State across the
country. The purpose of dearness
allowance, as explained by this Court
in Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen
(1969) 2 SCR 113, is “to neutralise a portion of the increase in the
cost of living.” When the rates which are fixed by the Central
Government are followed by most of the States, the recommendation of
the SNJPC is reasonable. This recommendation is also in the interests
of uniformity of service conditions of judicial officers across the country,
which, as stated above, is a cardinal principle on the basis of which the
present proceedings are based. Notably, a fixed rate of Dearness
Allowance would also ensure that there is no lag in the accrual of the
dearness allowance to the judicial officers.
63. Various States such as West Bengal, Assam, Nagaland and
Manipur are agreeable to rates fixed by the Central Government. The
States of Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, and Mizoram have argued
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
65
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
that their rates must be adopted. Other States have not specifically stated
anything with regard of rates of DA. It is observed that that a uniform
rate of DA would achieve the goals of uniformity as well as efficiency.
In such circumstances, the recommendation deserves acceptance.
IX. Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr Div)
(Recommendation 44.15 (i))
64. The Commission suggested that the 1st Assured Career
Progression be given to the Civil Judges (Jr Div) be granted on the basis
of relaxed norms of performance. At present, a Civil Judge (Jr Div)
would be entitled to the first ACP only after completing 5 years of service.
A Civil Judge (Jr Div) is normally in the process of learning the work in
his first two years. Assessment of the officer’s performance when the
first two years are riddled with trainings and deputations cannot be done
in a serious manner. This is especially so when, for the first two years,
no real work output is expected out of the judicial officer. Therefore, the
inability of the Officer to reach the prescribed targets of disposal or not
satisfying the quantitative norms during the initial stage of judicial career
need not be viewed seriously, especially having regard to the objective
behind the ACP.
65. Another aspect is that judicial officers serving in the cadre of
Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) have only two promotional avenues available to
them, i.e., Civil
Judge (Sr. Div.) and District Judge. Without any
promotional avenues, the stagnation in the service causes loss of morale
to judicial officers which has a direct bearing on their independence.
66. It may be noted that the Limited Competitive Examination
which has been introduced by virtue of this Hon’ble Court’s judgment in
All India Judges Association v. Union of India29 only applies to the
cadre of Civil Judges (Sr. Div.) to the cadre of District Judges. The
percentage reserved for LCE was initially 25%. This was reduced to
10% by All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India30.
67. This Court in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India,
relaxed the aforesaid conditions only for the Delhi Higher Judicial
Services in so far as it permits candidates with experience of 10 years to
appear for the Limited Competitive Examination for becoming District
Judges.31 At the same time, it is noticed that the Maharashtra Judicial
Service Rules, 2008 envisages an additional method for promotion for
29All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247 at para 28.
30All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India  (2010) 15 SCC 170 (para 7-8).
31All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (2022) 7 SCC 494.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Civil Judges (Jr Div) by conducting a separate Limited Competitive
Examination for them to be promoted to the position of Civil Judges (Sr
Div).32 It may be noted that there is no rule for the participation of Civil
Judge (Jr. Div.) in the Limited Competitive Examination to be recruited
as District Judge.
68. As regards the relaxed norms which could apply for the 1st
ACP, it is noted that the SNJPC has recommended that the scrutiny for
the grant of First ACP will be limited to ascertaining whether there is
anything positively adverse such as there is any poor/unsatisfactory
performance or there being an adverse report of serious nature leading
to the inference that the officer is unfit to have the benefit of the 1st
ACP. A similar provision already exists in Rule 3(5) of the Maharashtra
Judicial Services Rules, 2008. This Rule prescribes that for the 1st ACP,
the ACR rating required is only ‘Average’ and for the 2nd ACP, the
Judicial Officer needs to be rated ‘Good’ for five continuous years. Such
a rule is only an illustration. High Courts may devise other methods for
these relaxed norms.
69. It is thus directed that the grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr
Div) be given on the basis of relaxed norms which may be devised by
the High Courts, with reference to the suggestions of the Commission.
X. Delay in Grant of ACP (Recommendation 44.15(ii))
70. A perusal of the Commission’s Report at para 19.4 and 19.5
shows that,
in many states, the grant of ACP scale is delayed. The
Commission found that in certain jurisdictions, even after completion of
more than 10 years of service, ACP was not granted to Civil Judges (Jr
Div) and Civil Judges (Sr Div). This is unpardonable. Stagnation of careers
of judicial officers due to administrative delays causes loss of morale
and enthusiasm in vital stages of their careers, where they are entitled to
be considered for career progression.
71. The SNJPC’s finding that the lack of timely preparation and
scrutiny of ACR is the primary reason behind delay is concerning. ACRs
are bound to be done in a timely manner and without delay so as to
ensure that the whole judicial system is functioning in an efficient manner.
Accordingly, the High Courts may be directed to ensure that the delay in
making ACRs is avoided in the future.
32Rule 5, Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
67
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
72. Separately, to avoid this delay in the future, the Commission
suggested that the process of grant of ACP should be initiated 3 months
in advance from the date on which the judicial officers will be completing
5/10 years and the financial benefits should be paid to the judicial officer
within a period of 6 months after the judicial officer steps into the 6th/
11th year of Service. Therefore, the Commission recommended that if
grant of ACP is delayed for every year, one additional increment shall be
granted for every year of delay subject to the adjustment with the ACP
arrears.
73. The recommendations of the Commission are reasonable. As
stated above, delays ought to be avoided on the administrative side which
have the effect of stagnating the career of a judicial officer. The
suggestions of the Commission will bring about much needed efficiency
and perhaps, a standard operating procedure for the grant of ACP in a
timely manner. Thus, the recommendation merits acceptance.
XI. Changes in Percentage of District Judges (Selection
Grade) and District Judges (Super Time Scale)
(Recommendation 44.16)
74. The Commission has recommended the increase of percentage
of district judges who will be entitled to District Judge (Selection Grade)
and District Judge (Super Time Scale). The reasoning of the Commission
is that due to the limited percentage of District Judge (Super Time Scale)
and District Judge (Selection Grade), many judges from larger states
are unable to reach higher posts before retirement even though they
have spent considerable time in the District Judge Cadre. It also found
that as of October, 2019 only 1515 judges out of a cadre strength of
7382 district judges were getting the benefit of Selection Grade and
Super Time Scale.
75. The benefits of Super Time Scale and Selection Grade not
reaching a majority of district judges prior to their retirement is a situation
that should be avoided. The recommendation of the Commission that
the Selection grade and Super Time Scale posts should be increased by
10% and 5% respectively merits acceptance. Essentially, this would entail
that the District Judges at Entry level shall be 50%, selection grade 35%
and Super Time Scale – 15% of the total cadre strength of District
Judges.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
76. The Recommendations 44.16 (ii) and (iii) are regarding the
upgradation to be given to District Judges by applying the principle of
seniority-cum-merit and further that if the post remains or continues for
three years it shall form part of cadre strength. These recommendations
of the SNJPC may be considered at the appropriate stage as they do not
have a bearing on the issues of pay, which are being considered by this
Court at this stage.
XII. Pay Revision to be Given to Presiding Judges of
Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts (Recommendation
44.19)
77. Though Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, both statutory
courts created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 194733 are not presided
over by judicial officers, they are entitled to equal pay as district judges
based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Following this principle,
this Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar34 and State of
Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn.35 held that judicial
officers of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunal ought to be considered
on par with judicial officers. The recommendation of the Tribunal that
the pay revision be extended to judges of the Industrial Tribunals/Labour
Courts, thus merits acceptance as it is only an extension of the law laid
down by this Court.
XIII. Judges in Family Courts in Maharashtra
(Recommendation 44.18)
78. The Commission noticed that the Judges in the Family Courts
in Maharashtra
are recruited through a separate process and the officers
form part of a separate cadre. At the same time, Rule 8 of the Judges of
the Family Courts (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Maharashtra
Rules, 1990 also provides that the judge shall draw pay and allowances
at par with the judges (Principal Judge, Additional Principal Judge and
Judge respectively) of the City Civil Court, Bombay and at other places
pay and allowances as admissible to the District Judge.
79. The recommendation of the Commission is that the Judges of
the Family Court also be entitled to the benefit of Selection Grade and
33 Section 7 and 7A of the Industrial Tribunals Act, 1947 respectively.
34 State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2008) 12 SCC 219 at para 19.
35 State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn., (1998) 2 SCC 688 at para
20.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
69
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
Super Time Scale as well. The Commission further recommends that
quarters also be given to them from the general pool of accommodation.
80. The recommendation of the SNJPC is in line with the same
principles mentioned above in as laid down by this Court in State of
Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar36 and State of Maharashtra v.Labour
Law Practitioners’ Assn.37 for Labour Courts. When equal work is
done by the judicial officers, their pay and conditions of service must
also be equal. Thus, the recommendation of the Commission is accepted.
XIV. Minimum Remuneration to Special Judicial
Magistrates (Second Class) and Special Metropolitan
Magistrates (Recommendation 44.19)
81. A reading of para 36 of the report of the Commission shows
that in some states, officials who have worked in the judiciary, retired
executive officials possessing law degree etc. are appointed as Special
Judicial Magistrates under Sections 11 and 13 of the CrPC, 1973. The
Commission noted that in some states they are paid very meagre
remuneration and consequently has recommended a minimum pay of
Rs. 30,000 per month and a conveyance allowance of Rs. 5,000/-. The
Commission has further recommended that this benefit shall be given
from 01.04.2019.
82. The amicus has argued that even Rs. 30,000 is insufficient
today and such a low amount might not meet the minimum wage
requirements in certain states. Considering that
under Section 261, CrPC,
1973 such Magistrates can try offences which are punishable with fine
or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, such Magistrates cannot be
considered as discharging judicial functions that are incomparable to
regular Magistrates. As such, their financial independence is as much a
part of judicial independence as is for regular Magistrates. Thus, the
recommendation of the Commission modified by fixing the remuneration
at Rs. 45,000/- per month plus an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- as
conveyance allowance.
83. For the purpose of convenience, the recommendations and
their modifications/acceptance is tabulated below:
36 State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2008) 12 SCC 219 at para 19.
37 State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn., (1998) 2 SCC 688 at para
20.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Recommendation No. 
Recommendation 
Order of this 
Court
44.1 
States/High Courts shall take immediate 
steps to re-designate the officers in 
conformity with the All India pattern 
as recommended by FNJPC i.e. those 
who have not done it so far. 
Accepted 
44.2 
The new pay structure shall be as per the 
‘Pay Matrix’ pattern on the model of VII 
CPC as against the ‘Master Pay Scale’ 
pattern so as to remove the anomalies and 
to rationalize the pay structure and to ensure 
due benefit to the judicial officers of all 
cadres within the framework of established 
principles 
Accepted 
44.3 
The categorization of the Judicial officers 
shall be based on their status in the 
functional hierarchy reflected in horizontal 
range in Table-I below para 13.1 of the 
Report 
Accepted 
44.4, 44.5 
The initial pay for each rank of officer is
about 2.81 times the existing entry pay of 
each rank except J-6 and J-7, which is in the
same proportion of increase as that of the 
High Court Judge. Accordingly, the first row
in the horizontal range (J-1 to J-7) denotes
the entry pay for fresh recruits/appointees in
that level. 
Accepted 
44.6 
The new Mean Pay percentage vis-a-vis 
the salary of High Court Judge in relation 
to each cadre and grade as per p.182 of the 
Report 
Accepted 
44.7 
The annual increment shall be @3% 
cumulative, meaning thereby that the 
increment @3% has to be calculated on the 
previous years basic pay instead
of fixed 
amount 
increments 
recommended 
by 
FNJPC and JPC. 
Accepted 
44.8 
In the Pay Matrix pattern, there shall be 
now 37 stages instead of 44 
Accepted 
44.9 
The fitment/migration of the existing 
officers shall be as reflected in Table II at 
para 13.3, p.73 
Accepted – to be 
read with 
Corrigendum dated 
March  2021 
submitted by the 
SNJPC

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
71
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
44.10 
The procedure for migration/fitment of the serving 
Judicial officers and also the procedure for fixation 
of pay on promotion shall be as explained in paras 
13.5 and 13.8. 
Accepted – to 
be read with 
Corrigendum 
dated March 
2021 submitted 
by the SNJPC 
44.11(i) 
As regards the date of accrual of increment, there 
shall be no change in the existing system which is 
being followed in various states/UTs i.e. the 
increment shall be once in a year as per the date of 
appointment or promotion or financial upgradation. 
Accepted 
44.11(ii) 
The retiring Judicial officers shall have the benefit 
of increment becoming due the next day following 
their retirement. That increment shall be for the 
purposes of pension only and shall be subject to 
vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/-. 
Accepted 
44.12 
The 
pay 
of the 
judicial 
officers 
of

all 
ranks/grades 
in 
the 
new 
pay
matrix/pay structure shall be 
effective from 01.01.2016 
Accepted 
44.13 
Arrears of Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016 shall be paid 
during the calendar year 2020, after adjusting the 
interim relief already paid under the Interim 
Report dated 09.03.2018. 
Accepted 
44.14 
The present practice of sanction of DA at the rates 
prescribed by Central Government from time to 
time shall continue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court 
may issue directions that the benefit of revised DA 
in conformity with the orders issued by the Central 
Government from time to time shall be paid to the
Judicial officers without delay, and in any case, not 
later than 3 months from the date of issuance of the 
order by the Central Government. The benefit of
revised rates of DA shall accrue from the 
effective date as specified in the Order issued by 
Central Government in this behalf. 
Accepted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
44.15(i) 
Grant of 1st ACP to Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) shall 
not be based on the application of the existing 
norm of seniority-cum-merit. There shall be 
relaxed norms for assessing the performance in 
terms of output. The scrutiny shall be for the 
limited purpose of ascertaining whether there is 
anything positively adverse such as consistently 
poor/unsatisfactory performance or adverse 
report of serious nature leading to the inference 
that the Officer is unfit to have the benefit of 
ACP. 
Accepted, the revised 
norms be developed 
by the High Courts in 
accordance with this 
judgment 
44.15(ii) 
If for any reason, delay in grant of ACP goes 
beyond one year, one additional increment for 
every year delay shall be granted subject to 
adjustment while drawing the arrears on grant 
of ACP. 
Accepted 
44.16(i) 
The posts of District Judges (Selection Grade) 
shall be increased to 35% of the cadre strength 
as against the existing 25%, and the District 
Judges (Super Time Scale) shall be increased to 
15% of the cadre strength as against the 
existing 10%. It will be effective from 
01.01.2020 
Accepted 
44.16(ii) 
The upgradation benefit shall be given to the 
District Judges by applying the principle of 
seniority-cum-merit 
instead 
of 
merit-cum-
seniority. 
To be considered at 
the relevant stage 
44.16(iii) 
If the post remains or continues for three years 
it shall form part of cadre strength. 
To be
considered at 
the relevant stage 
44.17 
The Pay Revision benefit which is already 
available to the Presiding Judges of Industrial 
Tribunals/Labour Courts (outside the regular 
cadre of subordinate judiciary) in view of the 
recommendation of JPC, shall be extended to 
them also simultaneously with Judicial Officers 
of regular cadre without administrative delays. 
Accepted 
44.18 
The 
Judges 
of 
the 
Family 
Courts 
in 
Maharashtra who belong to a separate cadre have 
to be extended the benefit of pay of District 
Judge (Selection Grade) and District Judge 
(Super Time Scale) in the same ratio as 
prescribed for regular District Judges. The High 
Court to propose the minimum age for grant of 
Selection Grade, if considered necessary. The 
Principal Judge Family Court (ex-cadre) to be 
allotted quarters preferentially, in General Pool 
Accommodation. 
Accepted 
44.19 
Special 
Judicial 
Magistrates 
(Second 
Class)/Special Metropolitan Magistrates (dealing 
with petty criminal cases) shall get minimum 
remuneration of Rs.30,000/- per month in 
addition to conveyance allowance of Rs.5,000/- 
per month w.e.f. 01.04.2019 and to 
be suitably revised every five years. 
Accepted 
with 
modification of 
Rs. 45,000 per month 
and Rs. 5,000/- per 
month for conveyance
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
73
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
6. RECOMMENDATIONS ON PENSION, GRATUITY
AND AGE OF RETIREMENT ETC
84. We will now deal with the recommendations of SNJPC on
Pension, Gratuity etc. For the purposes of convenience, the
recommendations are set out below:
Recommendation 
No. 
Recommendation 
39.1
No change in pension for those retiring after 01.01.2016- the pension/family 
pension shall be @50% / 30% of the last drawn pay at the time of retirement 
39.2 
Revised pension of retired judicial officers would be 50% of last drawn pay 
39.3 
Formulations as given in Report to apply for pension revision: (i) Multiplier factor 
of 2.81 to be applicable for pension; or (ii) Pensioners to be fitted appropriately in 
the fitment table (Table II, para 13.3, Ch. II, Vol. I, p. 73) whichever is higher 
39.4 
Judicial officers who retired prior to 01.01.2016 to be placed notionally at the 
corresponding stage. 
39.5 
For judicial Officers who retired prior to 01.01.1996, if no consequential re- 
fixation has been done by the Government concerned based on the directives of 
this Hon’ble Court, the said benefit shall be extended to them first without further 
delay. 
39.6 
The benefits of number of years of practice at bar subject to maximum of 
weightage of ten years will be given to direct recruits of HJS who retired prior to 
01.01.2016. 
Family Pension 
4.1 
For family pensioners, no change is suggested in the existing percentage of family 
pension, that is, it shall be @30% of last drawn pay at the time of retirement of the 
Judicial officer 
4.2 
Family Pension @30% shall be paid to eligible family member(s) as given in Rule 
54 CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 at par with the spouse, after the death of the spouse. 
4.3 
The quantum of family pension shall be worked out in the same
manner as 
quantum of pension is worked out. 
4.4 
Income limit, if any prescribed by any State in relation to dependent family 
members (other than the spouse) for being eligible to get family pension shall be 
not less than Rs.30,000/- per month (rupees thirty thousand per month).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Additional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension 
21.1 
Additional quantum of family pension on completion of age of and at the rates 
specified as per Table in p.49, Vol. II Part-I 
21.2  
This benefit of additional pension shall be available to all eligible 
pensioners/family pensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2016. 
21.3 
No recovery shall be effected from those who have availed the benefit of 
additional pension on completion of age of 65 or 70 years as per the extant orders 
of the some of the State Governments 
21.4 
The State Governments may also choose to continue to extend the prevailing 
benefits upto the age of 75 years to the retired Judicial officers as well. 
Gratuity 
8.1 
Retirement gratuity shall be calculated as per Rule 50(1)(a) of CCS (Pension) 
Rules 1972. 
8.2 
The maximum limit for retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs 
which shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. 
8.3 
These recommendations shall be effective from 01.01.2016. 
8.4 
To the officers who have retired after 01.01.2016 and paid retirement gratuity as 
per pre-revised pay and the maximum limit at that time, the differential gratuity 
payable on account of revision of pay shall be paid subject to the revised 
maximum limit. 
8.5 
The death gratuity shall be paid as per table in p.52, Vol. II on the basis of length 
in service 
Retirement Age of Judicial Officers
No change in retirement age of 60 years recommended 
Financial Assistance in Case of Death 
9.1 
The benefit of family pension as per Rule 54(3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, as 
amended vide notification dated 19.09.2019 shall be extended to the family 
members. 
9.2 
The other benefits such as one time lumpsum grant, compassionate appointment, 
permission to stay in official quarters etc. already in force in the States shall 
continue to apply, in addition to death gratuity.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
75
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
Assistance to Pensioners/Family Pensioners 
11.1 
Special attention shall be bestowed to them by rendering due assistance for 
processing the medical bills of the pensioners/family pensioners who are too old, 
infirm or differently abled or undergoing in-patient treatment for serious ailment 
11.2 
District Judge shall nominate a Nodal Officer for liasoning work, if required, in 
emergency in facilitating admission in the hospital and getting the medical bills of 
the pensioners/family pensioners cleared promptly. 
11.3 
Special Cell entrusted with the responsibility of the processing the representations 
of the pensioners/family pensioners and to initiate action as may be considered 
appropriate to redress the grievance expediously, shall be created in the High 
Court under the supervision of an officer of the rank of Joint Registrar, in the High 
Court. 
11.4 
A Judge of the High Court shall be nominated to oversee the functioning of 
Special Cell and issue necessary instructions. 
11.5 
The representatives of the Retired Judges Associations shall be permitted to meet 
the Registrar General of the High Court atleast once in a year to discuss the 
problems, if any. 
11.6 
The Registry of the High Courts to compile data of the pensioners and family 
pensioners. 
National Pension Scheme 
31.1 
The National Pension System (NPS)/Defined Contributory Pension Scheme shall 
not be
applicable to all judicial officers. 
31.2 
The Defined Benefit Pension Scheme/Old Pension Scheme shall be applicable to 
all Judicial officers irrespective of the date of their joining the judicial service. 
31.3 
For those who have judicial service after 01.01.2004, the contributions together 
with the returns earned thereon will be refunded to them or transferred to their 
GPC account. 
31.4 
The Government shall facilitate opening of the GPF Account of the new entrants 
to the judicial service after 01.01.2004 and transfer their contribution with the 
returns earned thereon.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
7. CONSIDERATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON
PENSION, GRATUITY ETC
85.  Individual recommendations made by the SNJPC on pension
are considered hereinbelow.
I. No Change in Percentage of Pension for Retirees On or
After 01.01.2016 (Recommendation 39.1)
86. The Commission has not recommended any change in the
current percentage of pension, fixed at 50% of last drawn pay for pension
and 30% for last drawn pay for family pension. The FNJPC had also
recommended this position and this Court had accepted it. Therefore,
when no change is recommended, no real objections can be raised
regarding the recommendation.
II. Revised Pension of Retired Judicial Officers should be
50% of the Last Drawn Pay
87. After considering the opinions of the FNJPC and the One-
Person Commission, the Commission recommended that for judicial
officers who retired before 01.01.2016, the revised pension should be
50% of the last drawn pay of the post held at the time of retirement.
This is also unchanged in its formulation and thus remains the same.
III. Multiplier and Fitment of Pensioners in Pay Matrix
(Recommendation No.39.3, 39.4)
88. As a result of the recommendations of the SNJPC on pay, the
pensioners also will be equally benefitted. The recommendation of the
Commission is that the multiplier of 2.81 will equally apply to pensioners
as well. As a consequence thereof, the pensioners will also be fitted into
the table and pension will be paid to them on
this basis.In other words, to
ensure parity of pension between judicial officers who retired at the
same level but under different pay scales, the pension must be brought
on par. After extensive analysis, the Commission has also included certain
illustrations to make its recommendations clear. The illustrations lend
clarity to the recommendation and thus ought to be read along with the
recommendation.
89. It may be noted that as with the recommendation on fitment in
pay, the SNJPC has issued a corrigendum on fitment in its Supplemental
Report dated March 2021. This Corrigendum corrects arithmetical
mistakes made in the original report. Therefore, the fitment table must
be construed in accordance with the corrected table on fitment.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
77
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
90. There is merit in the recommendation of the Commission.
The revision of pay must also reflect in the revision of pension. Therefore,
the multiplier which applies to pay must also apply to pension.
Consequently, the pensioners must be therefore fitted into the same
scheme in the pay matrix. The recommendation is thus accepted.
IV. Consequential Re-fixation of Judicial Officers who
Retired Prior to 01.01.1996 (Recommendation no. 39.5)
91. The Commission noted that due to a discrepancy in the report
of the One-Person Commission, the pension granted to judicial officers
who retired after 2006 was not being given in parity to those who retired
before 2006. This Court in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India,
(2014) 14 SCC 444 (dated 08.10.2012) was apprised of the error
committed by the One-Person Commission and directed this to be
corrected. However, the prayer in the application was limited to post-
2006 retirees. In a second38 and third round39 of litigation, the Supreme
Court directed all the State Governments to follow its Order dated
08.10.2012 and directed revision of pension for those who retired post-
1996. By way of abundant caution, the Commission recommended that
those States which have not granted this benefit to those who retired
before 1996, must be given the same benefit.
92. The recommendation of the Commission is only in furtherance
of parity. State
Governments have, in the past, been directed to undertake
the consequential re-fixation before. However, if such consequential re-
fixation has not been undertaken, the officers who had retired prior to
1996, and who would have aged significantly would be discriminated
against. Such a situation ought to be avoided and thus the recommendation
merits acceptance. This Court directs this recommendation to be
implemented immediately and without delay.
V. Benefit of Years of Practice at the Bar while calculating
pension (Recommendation no. 39.6)
93. After considering the judgments rendered by this Court in
Government of NCT Delhi v All India Young Lawyers Association
(2009) 14 SCC 49, the Commission, recommended that the number of
38 Order dated 14.07.2016 in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India in WP(C) No.1022/
1989.
39 Order dated 13.03.2018 in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India in WP(C) No.1022/
1989.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
years of practice at the Bar subject to the maximum of weightage of 10
years shall be given while calculating pension and other retiral benefits.
This Court in Government of NCT Delhi reasoned that this would be
required as otherwise a direct recruit from the bar who becomes a District
Judge would not be entitled to full pension. The recommendation, being
the implementation of the judgment of this Court, merits acceptance. It
is accordingly ordered.
VI. Recommendations on Family Pension (Recommendation
Nos. 4.1 to 4.4)
94.  As regards family pension, the Commission has not
recommended any change in the existing percentage, i.e., 30% of the
last drawn pay. Therefore, this recommendation, as such, does not
warrant any further deliberation as it is the mere continuation of the
existing regime. The recommendation is accepted.
95. At the same time, the Commission has recommended payment
of family pension @ 30% to the eligible family member after the death
of the spouse. This benefit has been given in light of Rule 54 CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972, which grants similar benefits to members of the
central civil services. This recommendation is also thus accepted as it
has been granted to members of the central civil services.
96. Obviously, the quantum of family pension must be increased
as per the same multiplier/index of rationalization applicable for pension.
This is because the same factors which are applicable to pay and
pension
leading to their increase also equally apply to family pension. The
Commission has also recommended the same. We accept the
recommendation and direct that the quantum of family pension also
worked out in the same manner as quantum of pension is worked out.
97. The last recommendation is that on the income limit prescribed
by States to be eligible for family pension. The minimum limit prescribed
by the Commission was Rs. 30,000/-. This limit is reasonable but it must
be left to the discretion of the States to prescribe a higher limit which is
more beneficial to the judicial officers. Thus, the recommendation is
accepted.
VII. Recommendations on Additional Quantum of Pension/
Family Pension (Recommendation Nos. 21.1 to 21.4)
98. On account of the additional assistance required on increasing
age, it has been the policy of the Central Government to grant additional
quantum of pension. The Commission has recommended the payment
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
79
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
of additional quantum of pension from the age of 75 years onwards at
the rates mentioned in the table on p.44 of the Report.
99. It is seen that different states have different ages for the
grant of additional quantum of pension and family pension. The 7th CPC
suggested the age of 80 years as the minimum. High Court and Supreme
Court judges also receive additional quantum of pension at the age of 80
years. It was however argued by Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate that
as District Judges retire at a younger age, the additional quantum of
pension should accrue to them at a younger age as well.
100. Given that many of the States granted this benefit from the
age of 70 and the Commission recommended the grant of additional
quantum of pension from the age of 75. This reasoning of the Commission
merits acceptance. If States have been granting more beneficial pension
rates, it cannot be denied to the judicial officers. Judicial Officers cannot
be left worse off than officers of the State. Therefore, this Court accepts
this recommendation.
101. The Commission has further recommended that this benefit
be paid from 01.01.2016. As with the other similar recommendations for
the aspects of pay and pension, this recommendation is accepted.
102. The concern of the Commission, reflected in Recommendation
No.21.3, that recovery will be initiated against officers who have been
given additional
pension from the age of 65 or 70 is genuine. If judicial
officers have already been granted a more beneficial regime and are
moved to the regime suggested by the Commission and accepted by the
Court, no recovery ought to be made against them. Consequently, it is
left to the States to continue the benefits upto the age of 75 years as
well. These recommendations are accordingly accepted.
VIII. Recommendations on Gratuity (Recommendation Nos.
21.1 to 21.4)
103. The first recommendation on Gratuity by the Commission is
to bring the calculation of gratuity on par with Rule 50(1)(a) of the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. There cannot be any dispute
regarding this recommendation as it is to bring about uniformity in
conditions of service. Therefore, this recommendation merits acceptance
by this Court.
104. The Commission further recommended that the maximum
limit for retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. This
recommendation has also been made in accordance with the Report of
the 7th CPC, and the purpose of the same is to ensure that the cost of
living does not make the gratuity without purpose. Therefore, this
recommendation also merits acceptance by the Court.
105. The third recommendation is to make the recommendations
effective from 01.01.2016. This has now been settled by this Court before
and has been reiterated in the present judgment as well. The
recommendations must come into force from 01.01.2016. Consequentially,
those judicial officers who retired after 01.01.2016 must also benefit
from the acceptance of the Report. Thus, the Commission has suggested
that the differential gratuity be paid to them subject to the revised
maximum limit. This is merely consequential and is accepted by this
Court. It is accordingly ordered.
106. The final recommendation made by the Commission on the
subject of gratuity is that death gratuity be paid on the same lines as the
7th CPC. Accordingly, the recommendation is accepted as it is in line
with the already accepted principles laid down by this Court.
IX. Recommendations on Retirement Age
107. No change has been recommended by the Commission to
the retirement age of judicial officers. No opinion, therefore, is expressed
on this subject by this Court.
X. Recommendations on Financial Assistance in Case of
Death
108. The
Commission has recommended that where a judicial
officer dies while in service, the family pension and death cum retirement
gratuity as per the applicable rules is payable to the spouse/dependent,
of the deceased officer. The recommendation of the Commission is in
terms of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This recommendation
is reasonable and in furtherance of the principle of uniformity across
services. Therefore, it merits acceptance by this Court.
XI. Recommendations on Assistance to Pensioners
109. The Commission has made some well-considered
recommendations on assistance to be given to pensioners and family
pensioners. While they may merit acceptance, it is appropriate to consider
them at a later stage as they do not require any change in principles or
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
81
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
amendments to any rules but are merely executive in nature. Therefore,
this Court is of the opinion that the recommendations may be considered
at a later stage.
XII. Recommendations on Abolition of New Pension Scheme
110. This Court has been apprised of the recommendations made
by the Commission regarding the non-applicability of the New Pension
Scheme to judicial officers. However, given the objections raised to this
issue by a number of States, the issue may be dealt with separately after
hearing the states. Therefore, this recommendation too will be considered
at a later stage.
111. The resultant position on the recommendations is tabulated
below for convenience:
Recommendation 
No. 
Recommendation 
Order of this Court 
39.1
No change in pension for those retiring after 01.01.2016- 
the pension/family pension shall be @50% / 30% of the 
last drawn pay at the time of retirement 
Accepted 
39.2 
Revised pension of retired judicial officers would be 
50% of last drawn pay 
Accepted 
39.3 
Formulations as given in Report to apply for pension 
revision: (i) Multiplier factor of 2.81 to be applicable for 
pension; or (ii) Pensioners to be fitted appropriately in 
the fitment table (Table II, para 13.3, Ch. II, Vol. I, p. 73) 
whichever is higher 
Accepted 
– 
read 
with 
the 
Corrigendum dated 
March, 2021 
39.4 
Judicial officers who retired prior to 01.01.2016 to be 
placed notionally at the corresponding stage. 
Accepted 
– 
read 
with 
the 
Corrigendum dated 
March, 2021 
39.5 
For judicial Officers who retired prior to 01.01.1996, if 
no consequential re- fixation has been done by the 
Government concerned based on the directives of this 
Hon’ble Court, the said benefit shall be extended to 
them first without further delay. 
Accepted – directed 
to be implemented 
immediately 
39.6 
The benefits of number of years of practice at bar 
subject to maximum of weightage of ten years will be 
given to direct recruits of HJS who retired prior to 
01.01.2016. 
Accepted

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Family Pension
4.1 
For family pensioners, no change is suggested in the 
existing percentage of family pension, that is, it shall be 
@30% of last drawn pay at the time of retirement of the 
Judicial officer 
Accepted 
4.2 
Family Pension @30% shall be paid to eligible family 
member(s) as given in Rule 54 CCS (Pension) Rules 
1972 at par with the spouse, after the death of the 
spouse. 
Accepted 
4.3 
The quantum of family pension shall be worked out in 
the same manner as quantum of pension is worked out. 
Accepted  
4.4 
Income limit, if any prescribed by any State in relation 
to dependent family members (other than the spouse) for 
being eligible to get family pension shall be not less than 
Rs.30,000/- per month (rupees thirty thousand per 
month). 
Accepted 
– 
with 
liberty to States to 
grant 
more 
beneficial position 
Additional Quantum of Pension/Family Pension
21.1 
Additional quantum of family pension on completion of 
age of and at the rates specified as per Table in p.49, Vol. 
II Part-I 
Accepted 
21.2  
This benefit of additional pension shall be available to 
all 
eligible 
pensioners/family 
pensioners 
w.e.f. 
01.01.2016. 
Accepted  
21.3 
No recovery shall be effected from those who have 
availed the benefit of additional pension on completion 
of age of 65 or 70 years as per the extant orders of the 
some of the State Governments 
Accepted 
21.4 
The State Governments may also choose to continue to 
extend the prevailing benefits upto the age of 75 years to 
the retired Judicial officers as well. 
Accepted  
Gratuity

8.1 
Retirement gratuity shall be calculated as per Rule 
50(1)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. 
Accepted 
8.2 
The maximum limit for retirement gratuity/death 
gratuity shall be Rs. 20 lakhs which shall be increased 
by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. 
Accepted 
8.3 
These recommendations shall be effective from 
01.01.2016. 
Accepted 
8.4 
To the officers who have retired after 01.01.2016 and 
paid retirement gratuity as per pre-revised pay and the 
maximum limit at that time, the differential gratuity 
payable on account of revision of pay shall be paid 
subject to the revised maximum limit. 
Accepted 
8.5 
The death gratuity shall be paid as per table in p.52, Vol. 
II on the basis of length in service 
Accepted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
83
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
Retirement Age of Judicial Officers

No change in retirement age of 60 years recommended 
Accepted 
Financial Assistance in Case of Death

9.1 
The benefit of family pension as per Rule 54(3) of CCS 
(Pension) Rules, as amended vide notification dated 
19.09.2019 shall be extended to the family members. 
Accepted 
9.2 
The other benefits such as one time lumpsum grant, 
compassionate appointment, permission to stay in 
official quarters etc. already in force in the States shall 
continue to apply, in addition to death gratuity. 
Accepted 
Assistance to Pensioners/Family Pensioners
11.1 
Special attention shall be bestowed to them by rendering 
due assistance for processing the medical bills of the 
pensioners/family pensioners who are too old, infirm or 
differently abled or undergoing in-patient treatment for 
serious ailment 
To be considered at 
a later stage  
11.2 
District Judge shall nominate a Nodal Officer for 
liasoning work, if required, in emergency in facilitating 
admission in the hospital and getting the medical bills of 
the pensioners/family pensioners cleared promptly. 
11.3 
Special Cell entrusted with the responsibility of the 
processing the representations of the pensioners/family 
pensioners and to initiate action as may be considered 
appropriate to redress the grievance expediously, shall be 
created in the High Court under the supervision of an 
officer of the rank of Joint Registrar, in the High Court. 
11.4 
A Judge of the High Court shall be nominated to oversee 
the functioning of Special Cell and issue necessary 
instructions. 
11.5 
The representatives of the Retired Judges Associations 
shall be permitted to meet the Registrar General of the 
High Court atleast once in a year to discuss the 
problems, if any. 
11.6 
The Registry of the High Courts to compile data of the 
pensioners and family pensioners. 
National Pension Scheme
31.1 
The 
National 
Pension 
System 
(NPS)/Defined 
Contributory Pension Scheme shall not be applicable to 
all judicial officers. 
To be considered at 
a later stage 
31.2 
The Defined Benefit Pension Scheme/Old Pension 
Scheme shall be applicable to all Judicial officers 
irrespective of the date of their joining the judicial 
service. 
31.3 
For those who have judicial service after 01.01.2004, the 
contributions together with the returns earned thereon 
will be refunded to them or transferred to their GPC 
account. 
31.4 
The Government shall facilitate opening of the GPF 
Account of the new entrants to the judicial service after 
01.01.2004 and transfer their contribution with the 
returns earned thereon.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
8. CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTIONS
112. Ultimately, the effect of the acceptance of the
recommendations of this Court is that necessary amendments must be
carried out in Service Rules of the Judicial Officers across all jurisdictions.
It is thus directed that the High Courts and the competent authorities,
wherever applicable, bring the rules in conformity with the
recommendations accepted by this Court above within a period of 3
months. Compliance affidavits be placed on record by the High Courts,
the States and the Union within four months.
113. In the case of payment of arrears of pay, this Court had by
Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023 already directed that all arrears
of pay be cleared by 30.06.2023. In this regard, it is directed
thatcompliance affidavits must be filed by all States and Union Territories
by 30.07.2023 that the arrears of pay have been positively credited into
the accounts of the concerned officers.
114. The revised rates of pension, which have been approved by
this Court, shall be payable from 01.07.2023. For the payment of arrears
of pension, additional pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits as well,
following the Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023, it is directed that
25% will be paid by 31.08.2023, another 25% by 31.10.2023, and the
remaining 50% by 31.12.2023.
115. List on 17.7.2023 for further compliance on pay and pension
on which date this Court will take up the recommendations on
allowances.
Divya Pandey
Directions issued.
(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)