ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 327, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Directions issued
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 327 : 2024 INSC 26
All India Judges Association
v.
Union of India & Ors
(Writ Petition (Civil) No 643 of 2015)
04 January 2024
[Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, 
J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Allowances granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers 
by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC).
Headnotes
Judiciary – District Judiciary – Recommendations by Second 
National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) regarding various 
allowances for judicial officers and retired judicial officers – 21 
allowances considered by SNJPC in its report:
Held: As regards House Building Advance (HBA), recommendation 
of SNJPC that HBA be available to judicial officers also for the 
purchase of a ready built house from private individuals subject 
to such safeguards as may be prescribed by the State Govt. 
in consultation with their respective High Courts – Modification 
accepted – Payment of Children Education Allowance as 
recommended, approved – Recommendation for discontinuation 
of City Compensatory Allowance and no recovery to be made, 
accepted – Recommendations w.r.t Concurrent Charges Allowance; 
payment of conveyance/transport allowance; Earned Leave 
Encashment; Electricity and Water Charges; Hill Area/Tough 
Location Allowance; Home Orderly/Domestic Help Allowance; 
Newspaper and Magazine Allowances; Risk Allowance; Robe 
Allowance; Special Pay for Administrative Work; Telephone 
Facility; Transfer
Grant accepted –As regards Higher Qualification 
Allowance, the restrictive condition imposed by SNJPC in regard 
to non-extension of advance increments at the ACP stage, 
not accepted – Subject to this clarification, recommendations 
accepted – Further, out of the five components of house rent 
related allowances, two components-Furniture and Air Conditioner 
Allowance and Maintenance introduced for the first time – All the
328
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
components suggested are accepted – As regards, Leave Travel 
Concession/Home Travel Concession, recommendations are on 
a continuum and accepted, except for foreign travel to SAARC 
countries which shall be deleted – Substantive recommendations 
made w.r.t Medical Allowance/Facilities, accepted – As regards 
sumptuary allowance, recommendation for increase of 2.25 times 
based on the yardstick of annual inflation and increase of points 
in the consumer price index, accepted – Committee for Service 
Conditions of the District Judiciary (CSCDJ) be constituted 
in each High Court for overseeing the implementation of the 
recommendations of the SNJPC as approved – Composition, 
functions of the Committee and the issues to be considered, 
enumerated – States and Union Territories to act in terms of the 
directions expeditiously – Disbursements on account of arrears of 
salary, pension and allowances due and payable to judicial officers, 
retired judicial officers and family pensioners be computed and 
paid on or before 29.02.2024 – CSCDJs to monitor compliance 
and submit report on or before 07.04.2024. [Paras 20, 24, 27, 
29, 32, 34, 37, 40, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 55, 65, 67, 69, 71, 74, 77, 
79, 81, 83-87]
Judiciary – District Judiciary – Allowances for judicial 
officers, retired judicial officers – Objections raised that 
revision of rates/new allowances will result in an increased 
financial burden and expenditure; the rules
governing the 
payment of allowances prescribed by each State for their 
own administrative establishment must be followed; and 
the benefits which are provided to judicial officers must be 
equivalent to those provided to other Government officers:
Held: Submissions urged on behalf of the States have been 
considered in several previous judgments of this Court – Judicial 
service is an integral and significant component of the functions of 
the State and contributes to the constitutional obligation to sustain 
the rule of law – State is duty bound to ensure that the conditions 
of service, both during the tenure of office and after retirement, 
are commensurate with the need to maintain dignified working 
conditions for serving judicial officers and in the post-retirement 
emoluments made available to former members of the judicial 
service – Members of the district judiciary are the first point of 
engagement for citizens who are confronted with the need for 
dispute resolution – The conditions in which judicial officers across
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
329
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
the country are required to work are arduous – The work of a 
judicial officer is not confined merely to the working hours rendered 
in the course of judicial duties in the court – That apart, members 
of the district judiciary have wide ranging administrative functions 
which take place beyond working hours, especially on week-ends 
– Further, there is a need to maintain uniformity in the service 
conditions of judicial officers across the country – Thus, the plea 
that rules of each State must govern pay and allowances, lacks 
substance – Judges are not comparable with the administrative 
executive – They discharge sovereign state functions and just like 
the Council of Ministers or the political executive and their service 
is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive 
which carries out the decisions of the political executive, judges 
are distinct from judicial staff, and are thus comparable with the 
political executive and legislature – Wholly inappropriate to equate 
judicial service with the service of other officers of the State – The 
functions, duties, restrictions and restraints operating during and 
after service are entirely distinct for members of the judicial service 
– Plea of equivalence rejected yet again. [Paras 13, 17 and 18]
Case Law Cited
All India Judges Association v Union of India [2002] 
2 SCR 712 : (2002) 4 SCC 247; All India Judges 
Association v
Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 720; All India 
Judges Association v. Union of India (II) [1993] 1 Suppl. 
SCR 749 : (1993) 4 SCC 288; State of Maharashtra v 
Tejwant Singh Sandhu SLP(C) 1041 of 2020; Bharat 
Kumar Shantilal Thakkar v State of Gujarat & Anr. [2014] 
4 SCR 1147 : (2014) 15 SCC 305 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
District Judiciary; Second National Judicial Pay Commission; 
Allowances granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers; 
Children Education Allowance; City Compensatory Allowance; 
Concurrent Charges Allowance; Conveyance/transport allowance; 
Earned Leave Encashment; Electricity and Water Charges; Hill 
Area/Tough Location Allowance; Home Orderly/Domestic Help 
Allowance; Newspaper and Magazine Allowances; Risk Allowance;
330
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Robe Allowance; Special Pay for Administrative Work; Telephone 
Facility; Transfer Grant; Higher Qualification Allowance; House Rent 
Allowances; Furniture and Air Conditioner Allowance; Maintenance; 
Leave Travel Concession/Home Travel Concession; Medical 
Allowance/Facilities; Sumptuary Allowance, Committee for Service 
Conditions of the District Judiciary; Article 142.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL/INHERENT/EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.643 of 2015.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
With
SLP (C) Nos.6471-6473 of 2020, 29232 of 2018 and Contempt Petition 
(C) Nos.711 of 2022, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 848 and 1338 of 2023 in Writ 
Petition (C) No.643 of 2015.
Appearances for Parties
K.Parameshwar (Amicus Curiae), Ms. Kanti, Ms. Arti Gupta, MV 
Mukunda, Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Advs.
K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Shailesh Madiyal, B.K. Satija, Dr. Hemant 
Gupta, Barun Kumar Sinha,  Saurabh Mishra, Amit Anand Tiwari, 
A.A.Gs., K N Balgopal, Gurminder Singh, Adv. Gen./Sr. Advs., 
Lenin Singh Hijam, Adv. Gen, Kuldeep Parihar, D.A.G., Gourab 
Banerjee, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Wasim Quadri, Jaideep Gupta, Huzefa 
Ahmadi, Sunil Kumar, V. Giri, Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sanjay Parikh, 
Sr. Advs., Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Dhruv 
Sharma, VP Singh, Venkata Supreeth, Gopal Jha, Umesh Kumar 
Yadav, Deepak Prakash, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, 
Varun Varma, Md. Apzal Ansari, Milind Kumar,
Dr. Reeta Vasishta, 
Mohd Akhil, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, 
Ms. Sonali Jain, Chitvan Sinhal,  Kartikaya Aggrawal, Abhishek 
Kumar Pandey,  Raman Yadav, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Pashupathi 
Nath Razdan, Rushab Aggarwal, Sharath Nambiar,  Astik Gupta, 
Vaibhav Sabharwal, Japnish Singh Bhatia, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, 
Anmol Chandan, Vatsal Joshi, Annirudh Sharma-II, Ishaan Sharma, 
Kanu Agarawal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kumar 
Verma, Piyush Beriwal, Varun Chugh, Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, 
Sarthak Karol,  Harish Pandey, Apoorv Kurup, Shashwat Parihar, Mrs.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
331
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
Priyadarshini Priya, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Mahesh Thakur, Mrs. 
Geetanjali Bedi, Shivamm Sharrma, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek 
Mohanty,  Gagan Gupta, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Ms. Rucha A. 
Pande, Manish M. Veeraragavan, Ms. Gautami Yadav, Ms. Pranjal 
Chapalgaonkar, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. 
Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Kshitij Singh, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, 
Ms. Aparna Arun, Ms. Anchal, Akhil Hasija, Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, 
Ms. Kavita Jha,  Rajeev Kumar Jha, Aditeya Bali, P. I. Jose,  Anupam 
Mishra, James P. Thomas,  Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh,  Amit 
Sharma,  Sanjai Kumar Pathak,  Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Mrs. Shashi 
Pathak,  Nikhil Goel, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, 
Aniket Patel, Anupam Raina, Sunando Raha, Nikhil Palli, Nishant 
Kumar, Krishnanand Pandeya, Dev Pratap Shahi, Raghavendra 
S. Srivatsa, T. G. Narayanan Nair, A. Radhakrishnan,  Arjun Garg, 
Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun Srivastava,  Niranjan Sahu,  Umakant 
Misra,  Debabrata Dash, Abhijit Pattnaik, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Ashok 
Mathur, Mukul Kumar, Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, Sovon 
Siddhanta,  Saravanan A., J. Vasanthan,  K.G. Kannan,  Mukesh 
K. Giri,  Mandaar Mukesh Giri, Santosh Krishnan, Ms. Deepshikha 
Sansanwal, Anil Shrivastav,  Shuvodeep Roy,  Kabir Shankar 
Bose,  Saurabh Tripathi,  Manish Kumar,  Mahesh Kumar, Sumeer 
Sodhi, Nikhilesh Kumar, Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Ms. Devika Khanna,
Mrs. V D Khanna, VMZ Chambers,  Abhay Anil Anturkar,  Dhruv 
Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Ms. Deepanwita 
Priyanka, Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Payal Gupta,  Shivang Jain, Ms. 
Nitikaa Guptha, Ms. Monica Anand Kumar, Ms. Sabarni Som, Ravi 
Bakshi, Sandeep Rana, Ms. M. Venmani, S. Gowthaman, Ms. Saima 
Firoze, Abhisar Thakral, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Anando Mukherjee, 
Shwetank Singh, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, 
Abraham Mathew, Rebin Vincent Gralan, Sunny Choudhary, Sandeep 
Sharma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande,  Bharat 
Bagla,  Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Raavi Sharma, Ms. Yamini 
Singh, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Shrama, Ms. Rajkumari 
Divyasana, R. Rajaselvan,  Avijit Mani Tripathi,  Nirnimesh Dube, 
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. 
Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Shibashish Misra, Karan Sharma, 
Ajay Pal, Mohit Siwach, Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms. 
Vani Vandana Chhetri, Ms. Zinnea Mehta, Naman Jain, Sabarish 
Subramanian, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C Kranthi 
Kumar, Naman Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, Ms. V Keerthana, Ms. Tanvi
332
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Anand, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Sudarshan Singh 
Rawat, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, S Sunil, 
Sunny Sachin Rawat,  Parijat Sinha, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, 
Chirag M. Shroff, Aravindh S., Abbas, Ahantham Henry,  Ahantham 
Rahen Singh,  Mohan Singh,  Kumar Mihir, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,  T. 
V. Ratnam,  Ankur Kashyap,  Joydip Roy,  Gopal Jha,  Umesh Kumar 
Yadav,  Shreyash Bhardwaj,  Karthik S.D.,  Uday B. Dube, Deepak 
Prakash, Pawan Kr. Dabas,  Kamal Singh Bisht, Raneev Dahiya, 
Nachiketa Vajpayee, Ms. Divyangna Malik, Ms. Merlyn J. Rachel, 
Ms. Vishnu Priya,  Vardaan Kapoor, Rahul Lakhera,  Rahul Suresh, 
Aviral Saxena,  Piyush Thanvi, Mohammed Imran, Gautam Narayan, 
Ms. Asmita Singh, Harshit Goel, Sujay Jain, K.V. Vibu Prasad, 
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Ritwick Parikh, Karun Sharma, Ms. 
Rajkumari Divyasana, R. Rajaselvan,  Gopal Jha,  Umesh Kumar 
Yadav, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Santhosh Kumar Puppala, Ms. 
Shireesh Tyagi, Ms. Pranali Tayade Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Contents*
Objections by the Union Government and State  
Governments:............................................................................ 6
Allowances recommended by the SNJPC ...................................13
1	
House Building Advance (HBA) ...........................................13
2	
Children Education Allowance (CEA)
..................................15
3	
City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) ..................................16
4	
Concurrent Charges Allowance ...........................................17
5	
Conveyance/Transport Allowance (TP) ................................18
6	
Dearness Allowance .............................................................20
7	
Earned Leave Encashment ..................................................20
8	
Electricity and Water Charges .............................................21
9	
Higher Qualification Allowance ............................................22
10	
Hill Area/Tough Location Allowance .....................................24
* Ed. Note : Pagination is as per the original judgment.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
333
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
11	
Home Orderly/Domestic Help Allowance .............................25
12	
House Rent Allowance and Residential Quarters ...............26
13	
Leave Travel Concession(LTC)/Home Travel 
Concession (HTC).................................................................31
14	
Medical Allowance/Medical Facilities ...................................33
Fixed Allowance ...................................................................36
Medical Facilities and Reimbursement ................................36
15	
Newspaper and Magazine Allowances ................................39
16	
Risk Allowance .....................................................................40
17	
Robe Allowance ...................................................................40
18	
Special Pay for Administrative Work ....................................41
19	
Sumptuary Allowance ...........................................................42
20	
Telephone Facility ................................................................44
21	
Transfer Grant ......................................................................46
Institutionalization .........................................................................47
1.	
By its orders dated 27 July 2022, 5 April 2023 and 19 May 2023, this 
Court has accepted the recommendations of the Second National 
Judicial Pay Commission1, chaired by Justice P V Reddy, former 
Judge of this
Court of India on the revision of pay and pension for 
judicial officers. 
2.	
The abovementioned orders have delineated inter alia the history 
of the constitution of the SNJPC, and the principles underlying 
judicial pay, allowances and pensions. The contents of the earlier 
orders shall not be repeated here. This judgment pertains to the 
allowances which have been granted to judicial officers and retired 
judicial officers by the SNJPC. At this stage, it would be necessary 
to note that save and except for three allowances, where there was 
a modification, the allowances recommended by the First National 
Judicial Pay Commission known as the Shetty Commission were 
affirmed by this Court in All India Judges Association v Union of 
India2. Thereafter, all allowances which were recommended by the 
1	
“SNJPC”
2	
(2002) 4 SCC 247
334
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
subsequent pay commission, namely the Judicial Pay Commission3 
called the Justice Padmanabhan Committee were accepted by this 
Court in its decision reported as All India Judges Association v 
Union of India4. 
3.	
Besides Mr K Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae, all the State governments 
and Union Territories have been given an opportunity to furnish their 
objections to the allowances, as proposed by the SNJPC. Objections 
have been filed on the record of this Court.
4.	
In the course of hearing, the following counsel have appeared on 
behalf of the States, or as the case may be, the Associations of 
Judges :
S. No.
Name of the counsel
Appearing for
1
Mr Gaurab Banerji, Sr. Adv.
AIJA
2
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv
High Court at Calcutta
3
Mr Gopal Jha, Adv
All India Retired Judges 
Association
4
Ms Gautami Yadav, Adv
Maharashtra State Judges 
Association
5
Mr Sunny Choudhary
Madhya Pradesh
6
Mr Mukesh Kumar Verma
Andaman & Nicobar
7
MrJoydip Roy, Adv.
All India Judges Association
8
Ms Madhumita Bhattacharjee 
West Bengal
9
Mr Sanjay Kumar Tyagi
Uttar Pradesh
10
Mr Shuvodeep Roy
Assam and Tripura
11
Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha
Bihar
12
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG
Tamil Nadu
13
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv
Tamil Nadu
14
Mr. Karan Sharma, Adv.
Punjab
15
Dr Manish Singhvi, Sr, Adv
Rajasthan
16
Mr V N Raghupathy, Adv
Karnataka
17
Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv
Gujarat
18
Mr. Sriharsha Pichara, Adv
Telangana
3	
“JPC”
4	
(2010) 14 SCC 720
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
335
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
19
Mr Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar
Manipur
20
Ms K Enatoli Sema
Nagaland
21
Ravi Bakshi, Adv
Himachal Pradesh
22
Mr Alim Anvar, Adv.
Kerala
23
Mr Amit Kumar, AAG
Meghalaya
24
Mr Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv
Uttarakhand
25
Mr Deepak Prakash, Adv
Kerala Judicial Officers 
Association.
5.	
In addition, we have had the benefit of considering intervention 
applications by the State of Maharashtra. 
6.	
The Amicus Curiae has tendered a note summarizing the position. 
The SNJPC considered a total of twenty-one allowances in its report. 
These allowances are tabulated below:
1.
 House Building Advance
12. House Rent Allowance
a.	
Residential Quarters
b.	
HRA
c.	
Furniture & 
Air Conditioner 
Allowance
d.	
Maintenance
e.	
Guest House
2.
Children Education Allowance
13.
Leave Travel Concession/
Home Travel Concession
3.
City Compensatory Allowance
14.
14. Medical Allowance
4.
Concurrent Charge allowance
15.
Newspaper and Magazine 
Allowance 
5.
Conveyance/Transport Allowance
16.
Risk Allowance
6.
Dearness Allowance
17.
Robe Allowance
7.
Earned leave encashment
18.
Special Pay for 
Administrative Work
8.
Electricity and water charges
19.
Sumptuary Allowance
9.
Higher Qualification
20.
Telephone Facility
10.
Hill area/ Tough Location 
Allowance
21.
Transfer Grant
11.
Home orderly/Domestic Help 
Allowance
336
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
7.	
Among the allowances which have been recommended by the SNJPC, 
two new allowances are proposed while two additional components 
are introduced to an additional allowance, namely :
(i)	
Children Education Allowance (Serial No 2 in the tabulation);
(ii)	
A Furniture and Air conditioner allowance and maintenance 
as a part of the House Rent Allowance (Serial Nos 12C and 
12D); and
(iii)	 Risk Allowance (Serial No 16 of the tabulation).
8.	
The SNJPC has recommended that the City Compensatory Allowance 
(Serial No 3 of the above tabulation) should be discontinued. In respect 
of the Robe Allowance (Serial No 17), the SNJPC recommended 
that such a demand would not be entertained by the next JPC. 
Twelve out of the twenty-one allowances form the subject matter of a 
recommendation either by the Sixth or, as the case may be, Seventh 
Central Pay Commission either on the same or on revised rates.
9.	
At the outset, it needs to be clarified that since the SNJPC has 
proposed a revision of the existing rates as applicable, the States/
Union Territories shall continue to pay the allowances at the rates 
which were applicable in respect of each allowance where the SNJPC 
has recommended that the revised rates shall come into effect later 
than 1 January 2016. 
Objections by the Union Government and State Governments:
10.	 Before we deal with each individual allowance, it would be necessary 
to record that, broadly speaking, the
objections which have been 
raised by the States, Union Territories and the Union Government 
can be classified into three categories :
(a)	 The revision of rates or, as the case may be, the new allowances 
will result in an increased financial burden and expenditure;
(b)	 The rules governing the payment of allowances prescribed by 
each State for their own administrative establishment must be 
followed; and
(c)	
the benefits which are provided to judicial officers must be 
equivalent to those provided to other Government officers.
11.	 The submissions urged on behalf of the States have been considered 
in several previous judgments of this Court, more specifically in relation 
to the recommendations of the SNJPC itself. On the aspect of the
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
337
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
increased financial burden and additional expenditure, this Court, in 
its judgment dated 5 April 2023, relied on the earlier decision in the 
All India Judges Associationv.Union of India (II)5 andheld that 
contentions regarding the financial implications of the directions are 
liable to be rejected when the directions stem from the obligation 
of the state. In other words, a plea of financial burden cannot be 
raised to resist mandatory duties of the state. Providing necessary 
service conditions for the effective discharge of judicial functions 
is one such duty. The observations in that regard are contained in 
paragraph 19 of the judgment dated 05 April 20236.
12.	 The same objection was dealt with in the subsequent judgment of 
this Court dated 19 May 2023 at paragraph 26.7 The Court noted 
that the issue of financial burden has been examined in these very 
proceedings on at least three occasions and that this Court had 
earlier expressed the hope that it will not be re-agitated in view of 
All India Judges Association vs Union of India (II)8.
13.	 Judicial service is an integral and significant component of the 
functions of the State and contributes to the constitutional obligation to 
sustain the rule of law. Judicial service is distinct in its characteristics 
and in terms of the responsibilities which are cast upon the officers 
of the District Judiciary to render objective dispensation of
justice 
5	
(1993) 4 SCC 288. 
6	
19. The directions of this court applying a uniform multiplier and the corresponding financial implications 
cannot be considered as excessive in view of the information extracted above. In All India Judges As-
sociationv. Union of India (II), this court has earlier held that additional financial burden cannot be a 
ground for review:
“16. The contention with regard to the financial burden likely to be imposed by the di-
rections in question, is equally misconceived. Firstly, the courts do from time to time 
hand down decisions which have financial implications and the Government is 
obligated to loosen its purse recurrently pursuant to such decisions. Secondly, 
when the duties are obligatory, no grievance can be heard that they cast financial 
burden. Thirdly, compared to the other plan and non-plan expenditure, we find 
that the financial burden caused on account of the said directions is negligible. 
We should have thought that such plea was not raised to resist the discharge of the 
mandatory duties. The contention that the resources of all the States are not uniform 
has also to be rejected for the same reasons. The directions prescribe the minimum 
necessary service conditions and facilities for the proper administration of justice. We 
believe that the quality of justice administered and the caliber of the persons appointed 
to administer it are not of different grades in different States. Such contentions are ill-
suited to the
issues involved in the present case.”
(emphasis supplied)
7	
26. The submission of the States that there is a paucity of financial resources must be examined from 
this aspect of the matter. The States and the Union have repeatedly stated that the burden on the finan-
cial resources of the States/Union due to the Report of the SNJPC is significant and therefore the Report 
cannot be implemented. Without the doctrine of inherent powers, any de-funding of the Judiciary cannot 
be repelled.
8	
(1993) 4 SCC 288.
338
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to citizens. The State is duty bound to ensure that the conditions 
of service, both during the tenure of office and after retirement, are 
commensurate with the need to maintain dignified working conditions 
for serving judicial officers and in the post-retirement emoluments 
made available to former members of the judicial service. Members of 
the district judiciary are the first point of engagement for citizens who 
are confronted with the need for dispute resolution. The conditions 
in which judicial officers across the country are required to work 
arearduous. The work of a judicial officer is not confined merely to 
the working hours rendered in the course of judicial duties in the 
court. Every judicial officer is required to work both before and after 
the court working hours. The judicial work of each day requires 
preparation before cases are called out. A judicial officer continues to 
work on cases which may have been dealt with in court, in terms of 
preparing the judgment and attending to other administrative aspects 
of the judicial record. That apart, members of the district judiciary 
have wide ranging administrative functions which take place beyond 
working hours, especially on week-ends including the discharge of 
numerous duties in relation to prison establishments, juvenile justice 
institutions, legal service camps and in general, work associated with 
the Legal Services Act 1987.
14.	 The work of a
Judge cannot be assessed solely in terms of their 
duties during court working hours. The State is under an affirmative 
obligation to ensure dignified conditions of work for its judicial officers 
and it cannot raise the defense of an increase in financial burden or 
expenditure. Judicial officers spend the largest part of their working 
life in service of the institution. The nature of the office often renders 
the incumbent incapacitated in availing of opportunities for legal work 
which may otherwise be available to a member of the Bar. That 
furnishes an additional reason why post-retirement, it is necessary for 
the State to ensure that judicial officers are able to live in conditions 
of human dignity. It needs to be emphasized that providing for judges, 
both during their tenure and upon retirement, is correlated with 
the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence, which is 
necessary to preserve the faith and confidence of common citizens 
in the rule of law, can be ensured and enhanced only so long as 
judges are able to lead their life with a sense of financial dignity. 
The conditions of service while a judge is in service must ensure a 
dignified existence. The post-retirement conditions of service have 
a crucial bearing on the dignity and independence of the office of 
a judge and how it is perceived by the society. If the service of
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
339
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
the judiciary is to be a viable career option so as to attract talent, 
conditions of service, both for working and retired officers, must offer 
security and dignity.
15.	 As we shall indicate in the course of this judgment, the allowances 
which have been provided by the SNJPC are basic allowances, most 
of which rank on the same scale as what has been made available 
to officers discharging executive functions in the AllIndia Services. It 
is a matter of grave concern that though officers in the other services 
have availed of a revision of their conditions of service as far back as 
01 January 2016, similar issues pertaining to judicial officers are still 
awaiting a final decision eight years thereafter. Judges have retired 
from service. The family pensioners of those who have passed away 
are awaiting resolution as well.
16.	 The second objection which has been raised on behalf of the States 
is that the rules of the particular State must be followed in each 
instance. This has again been dealt with in the judgment of this 
Court dated 19 May 2023. The relevant extract is footnoted below.9
17.	 This Court has categorically held that there is a need to maintain 
uniformity in the service conditions of judicial officers across the 
country. Thus, the plea that rules of each State must govern pay 
and allowances, lacks substance. 
18.	 The third objection as to the equivalence between judicial
officers 
and other Government officers has been elaborately analyzed 
in paragraph 1410 of the judgment dated 05 April 2023 and in 
9	
22. India has a unified judiciary under the scheme of the Constitution. A unified judiciary necessarily 
entails that the service conditions of judges of one state are equivalent to similar posts of judges of other 
states. The purpose of this constitutional scheme is to ensure that the judicial system is uniform, effective 
and efficient in its functioning. Efficient functioning necessarily requires judges of caliber and capacity to 
be provided with the right incentives and promotion opportunities to maintain the high level of functioning 
of the judiciary.  
23 This Court in All India Judges Association (II) has noted the position of law and observed that uniform 
designations and hierarchy, with uniform service conditions are unavoidable necessary consequences. 
It was held: 
 “14. … Secondly, the judiciary in this country is a unified institution judicially 
though not administratively.Hence uniform designations and hierarchy, with uni-
form service conditions are unavoidable necessary consequences. ….”
10	
14. In view of the above discussion, the issue is whether there is any compelling need to reduce the 
quantum of increase proposed by applying a lower multiplier so as to marginally reduce the gap between 
entry level IAS officers (in Junior and Senior time scales) and Judicial Officers at the first two levels (Civil 
Judge, Junior
and Senior Divisions). Such an exercise is not warranted for more than one reason. Firstly, 
the initial starting pay must be such as to offer an incentive to talented youngsters to join judicial service. 
Secondly, the application of a multiplier/ factor less than 2.81 would result in a deviation from the prin-
ciple adopted by SNJPC that the extent of increase of pay of judicial officers must be commensurate with
340
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
paragraphs 24, 2911 of the judgment dated 19 May 2023. Judges are 
the increase in the pay of High Court judges. This principle has been accepted by this Court by approving 
the recommendations of the SNJPC. Therefore, there is no valid reason to depart from the principle ap-
plied by JPC that the pay of judicial officers should be higher when compared to All India Service Officers 
of the corresponding rank. This principle has been approved by this Court in AIJA (2002).….. Thirdly, in 
All India Judges Association (II) v. Union of India, this court rejected the comparison of service condi-
tions of the judiciary with that of the administrative executive:
“7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated in the judgment under 
review while dealing with the same contentions raised there. We cannot however, help 
observing that the failure to realize the distinction between the judicial service and the 
other services is at the bottom of the hostility displayed by the review petitioners to 
the directions given in the judgment. The judicial service is not service in the sense 
of ‘employment’. The Judges are not employees. As members of the judiciary, they 
exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They are holders of public offices 
in the same way as the members of the council of ministers and the members of 
the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such as ours, the executive, the
legislature and the judiciary constitute the three pillars of the State, what is intended to 
be conveyed is that the three essential functions of the State are entrusted to the three 
organs of the State and each one of them in turn represents the authority of the State. 
However, those who exercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators and 
the Judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing 
their decisions. The council of ministers or the political executive is different from the 
secretarial staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of the 
political executive. Similarly, the Legislators are different from the legislative staff. So 
also the Judges from the judicial staff. The parity is between the political executive, the 
Legislators and the Judges and not between the Judges and the administrative execu-
tive. In some democracies like the USA, members of some State judiciaries are elected 
as much as the members of the legislature and the heads of the State. The Judges, 
at whatever level they may be, represent the State and its authority unlike the 
administrative executive or the members of the other services. The members of 
the other services, therefore, cannot be placed on a par with the members of the 
judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally.”
(emphasis supplied) 
Fourthly, the argument that a uniform IoR would equate the district courts with constitutional courts 
is
erroneous. A uniform multiplier is used for a uniform increment in pay and not for the purpose of 
uniform pay in itself. All Judges across the hierarchy of courts discharge the same essential function of 
adjudicating disputes impartially and independently. Thus, it would not be appropriate to apply graded 
IoR when SNJPC has chosen to uniformly apply the multiplier. 
11	
24. Separation of powers demands that the officers of the Judiciary be treated separately and distinct 
from the staff of the legislative and executive wings. It must be remembered the judges are not em-
ployees of the State but are holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial power. In that 
sense, they are only comparable to members of the legislature and ministers in the executive. 
Parity, thus, cannot be claimed between staff of the legislative wing and executive wing with of-
ficers of the judicial wing. This Court in All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India, explained the 
distinction and held that those who exercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators 
and the Judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing their 
decisions. Thus, there cannot be any objection that judicial officers receive pay which is not at 
par with executive staff. In this context, it may also be remembered that Article 50 of the Constitution 
directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the Executive. 
29. This Court in its Review Order dated
05.04.2023 has explained this position in the following words:
“7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated in the judgment under re-
view while dealing with the same contentions raised there. We cannot however, help 
observing that the failure to realize the distinction between the judicial service 
and the other services is at the bottom of the hostility displayed by the review 
petitioners to the directions given in the judgment. The judicial service is not ser-
vice in the sense of ‘employment’. The Judges are not employees. As members 
of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
341
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
not comparable with the administrative executive. They discharge 
sovereign state functions and just like the Council of Ministers or the 
political executive and their service is different from the secretarial 
staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of 
the political executive, judges are distinct from judicial staff, and are 
thus comparable with the political executive and legislature. It would 
be wholly inappropriate to equate judicial service with the service 
of other officers of the State. The functions, duties, restrictions and 
restraints operating during and after service are entirely distinct for 
members of the judicial service. Consequently, the plea of equivalence 
has been consistently rejected in the judgments of this Court. We 
affirmatively do so again.
Allowances recommended by the SNJPC
19.	 We will now deal with each of the allowances as recommended by 
the SNJPC.
1.	
House Building Advance (HBA)
20.	 At the outset, it needs to be noted that the HBA forms a subject 
matter of the recommendations of the Seventh CPC, FNJPC, JPC 
and now the SNJPC. The SNJPC has recommended that :
(i)	
HBA shall be made available to judicial officers in terms of the 
House Building Advance Rules, 2017; and
(ii)	
HBA shall be available to judicial officers also for the purchase 
of a ready built house from private individuals subject to such 
are holders of public
offices in the same way as the members of the council of 
ministers and the members of the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy 
such as ours, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitute the three pillars 
of the State, what is intended to be conveyed is that the three essential functions of 
the State are entrusted to the three organs of the State and each one of them in turn 
represents the authority of the State. However, those who exercise the State power 
are the Ministers, the Legislators and the Judges, and not the members of their staff 
who implement or assist in implementing their decisions. The council of ministers or the 
political executive is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive 
which carries out the decisions of the political executive. Similarly, the Legislators are 
different from the legislative staff. So also the Judges from the judicial staff. The parity 
is between the political executive, the Legislators and the Judges and not between the 
Judges and the administrative executive. In some democracies like the USA, members 
of some State judiciaries are elected as much as the members of the legislature and 
the heads of the State. The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the 
State and its authority unlike the administrative executive or the members of the other 
services. The members of the other services, therefore, cannot be placed on a par with 
the members of the judiciary,
either constitutionally or functionally.”
(emphasis supplied)
342
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
safeguards as may be prescribed by the State Government in 
consultation with their respective High Courts.
21.	 The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India has 
issued an Office Memorandum12 dated 9 November 2017 providing 
for the payment of HBA. The recommendations of the SNJPC are 
based on the terms of this OM. However para 2(v) of the OM of the 
Union Government contains the following stipulation :
“5. Outright purchase of a new ready-built house flat 
from Housing Boards, Development Authorities and other 
statutory or semi-Government bodies and from registered 
builders i.e., registered private builders, architects house 
building societies, etc. but not from private individuals.”
22.	 The above clause in the OM indicates that the HBA can be availed 
of for the outright purchase of a new or ready built house or flat from 
public bodies as well as from registered private builders, architects 
and societies but not from private individuals. The SNJPC, in the 
course of its recommendations has observed as follows :
“6.	
The Commission having given its consideration to the 
same is of the view that the HBA advance to the Judicial 
Officers shall be in terms of HBA Rules, 2017. However, 
the expression “but not from private individual” in Clause 
2(v) needs to be suitably modified. It is quite possible 
that an individual may have purchased the house from 
the institutions/societies mentioned in the
O.M. and if he 
subsequently intends to sell it and a Judicial Officer is 
inclined to purchase it. In such an event, the HBA may not 
be available to the Judicial Officer if Clause 2(v) is strictly 
construed. Further, quite often the Government servants/
officials as well as Judicial Officers would prefer to have 
ready built house and mere fact that the seller is a private 
individual should not be a good reason to deny the HBA 
on the terms set out in the Rules. It may be noted from 
O.M. that from registered private builders, architects, house 
building societies etc. purchase by a private individual is 
allowed. There is no good reason for exclusion of purchase 
12	
“OM”
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
343
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
from private individuals. However, suitable safeguards to 
check any overestimation in the case of purchases from 
private individual can be evolved by the State Government 
in consultation with the High Court. “
23.	 The SNJPC has basically adopted the same financials as incorporated 
in the OM of the Union Government with the modification that the 
purchase from a private individual may also be permitted. 
24.	 We are inclined to accept the modification particularly since the State 
Governments have been permitted to evolve suitable safeguards, 
to check any over estimation in case of a purchase from private 
individuals, in consultation with the High Court to ensure that there is 
not delay in implementation, we direct that the Committee constituted 
in terms of the directions issued in a later part of this judgment 
under the authority of every High Court shall sort out any difficulties 
which may arise in the implementation of the recommendations of 
the SNJPC as accepted by the present order. 
25.	 We accordingly accept the recommendations of the SNJPC on the 
adoption of HBA.
2.	
Children Education Allowance (CEA)
26.	 The SNJPC has recommended the payment of the allowance with 
effect from academic year 2019-2020. The recommendation by 
the SNJPC on the payment of the CEA is in accordance with the 
recommendations of the Seventh CPC for Central Government 
employees which is in the following
terms :
(a)	 Rs 2,250 per month as CEA and Rs 6,750 per month as hostel 
subsidy for two children up to Class 12;
(b)	 For children with special needs, the reimbursement would be 
at double the rate stated in (a);
(c)	
When the DA increases by 50%, the allowances and subsidy 
shall increase by 25%; and
(d)	 The rights of officers who are already receiving this benefit will 
not be adversely affected by the recommendation.
27.	 While arriving at the above rates for the CEA, the SNJPC has 
considered the fact that the judicial service has a pan India character.
344
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
In making the recommendation, the SNJPC has based the payment 
of the allowance of the CEA in terms of the OM dated 16 August 
2017 of the Union Government in the Department of Personnel 
and Training. The payment of the allowance as recommended shall 
accordingly stand approved.
3.	
City Compensatory Allowance (CCA)
28.	 While recommending that the CCA be discontinued prospectively 
on the ground that it is not being paid to High Court or Supreme 
Court Judges after the Seventh CPC recommendations, the SNJPC 
has also directed that no recovery shall be effected on the amount 
already paid on account of the allowance.
29.	 We approve both the recommendation for discontinuation and the 
recommendation that no recovery shall be made.
4.	
Concurrent Charges Allowance
30.	 The SNJPC has observed that concurrent charge allowance is payable 
to officers who are required to hold full charge of the duties of equal 
or higher responsibilities in addition to the duties of their own post. 
The following recommendations were made by the FNJPC:
“a)	 The charge allowance be paid to the Judicial Officer when 
he is placed in charge of another Court continuously 
beyond the period of 10 working days and if he performs 
appreciable judicial work of that Court;
AND
b)	
The charge allowance be paid to such Judicial Officer at 
10% of the minimum of the time scale of the additional 
post held.”
31.	 The SNJPC has made a similar recommendation
for the payment 
of a like allowance where a judicial officer was placed in charge of 
another court continuously beyond a period of ten working days. The 
SNJPC was of the view that the Concurrent Charge Allowance with 
a ceiling @ 10% of the minimum of the scale of the additional post 
held beyond a period of ten working days is reasonable and does 
not require any upward revision. Moreover, it opined that with the
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
345
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
revision of pay, the quantum of allowance at the rate of 10% is an 
adequate sum. The SNJPC observed that the actual amount payable 
within the ceiling of 10% depends upon the number of days worked, 
the quantum of judicial work turned out and the administrative work 
handled. Moreover, as was being done earlier, the High Courts would 
decide the amount payable having regard to the relevant factors. The 
SNJPC, however, recommended that the parameter of “appreciable 
judicial work” of the FNJPCis vague and involves a cumbersome 
process. That criterion has accordingly been dispensed with. The 
summary of the recommendations of SNJPC in that regard is set 
out below:
“1.	
The concurrent charge allowance to be available maximum 
at the rate of 10% of the minimum of the scale of the 
additional post held beyond a period of ten working days.
2.	
No upward revision in the percentage of the Concurrent 
Charge allowance.
3.	
High Court to decide the Concurrent Charge allowance to 
be available to the Officer within the ceiling of 10% on the 
basis of the number of days worked, the quantum of judicial 
work turned out and the administrative work handled.
4.	
The criterion laid down by FNJPC be dispensed with and 
there shall not be any insistence on the performance of 
‘appreciable judicial work’ of the Court concerned. “
32.	 The recommendations made by the SNJPC is accordingly accepted.
5.
Conveyance/Transport Allowance (TP)
33.	 As regards Conveyance/Transport Allowance, the SNJPC made the 
following recommendations:
(a)	 The pool car service for various judicial officers, as recommended 
by FNJPC, must be dispensed with. However, if the officers wish, 
they can forgo the transport allowance and continue with the 
pool car service for a period of one year or so;
(b)	 The transport allowance at the rate of Rs 10,000 per month 
be given to those judicial officers who own the car so as to
346
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
cover the cost of maintenance and driver’s salary and this will 
be increased to Rs 13,500 from 01.01.2021. The transport 
allowance would be payable at a reduced rate of Rs 4,000 per 
month in those States where there is an existing practice of 
allocating a driving-knowing office attendant/peon to the officer;
(c)	
In addition to the transport allowance, there should be a 
reimbursement of the cost of 100 litres of petrol/diesel in cities 
and 75 litres of petrol/diesel in other areas;
(d)	 After the recommendations of FNJPC, the following judicial 
functionaries were eligible for official vehicles, namely, Principal 
District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan 
Magistrate, Principal Judge of City Civil Court and Principal 
Judge of Small Causes Court. In addition to these functionaries, 
three more judicial functionaries would be eligible for official 
vehicles, namely, Director of the Judicial Academy/Judicial 
Training Institute, Principal Judge of the Family Courts and 
Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority. The High 
Courts were permitted to prune down the list depending upon 
the financial capacity of the State;
(e)	 The quantum of petrol/diesel for official cars would be raised to 
the actual consumption for official purposes as certified by the 
concerned official and supported by a log book, which would 
be maintained. The judicial officers using official cars may be 
permitted to use
them for private purposes to the extent of 300 
kms per month;
(f)	
The judicial officers shall be permitted to exhibit a sticker at their 
option on the lower left side of the windscreen with inscription 
‘Judge’ printed in moderately sized letters; and
(g)	 Soft loan facilities to the extent of Rs ten lakhs at nominal interest 
for the purchase of car shall be extended to the judicial officers.
34.	 The report of the SNJPC in regard to the payment of conveyance/
transport allowance is accepted. All concerned authorities shall take 
steps for the purpose of implementing the recommendations.
6.	
Dearness Allowance
35.	 By its order dated 19 May 2023, this Court has accepted the 
recommendation of the SNJPC on dearness allowance.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
347
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
7.	
Earned Leave Encashment
36.	 The SNJPC has recommended that the judicial officers be entitled 
to earned leave encashment in the following manner:
“9. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1.	
No enhancement in the maximum limit of 300 days 
leave encashment at the time of retirement.
2.	
A judicial officer shall be entitled to encash :
(a)	 10 days earned leave while availing LTC subject 
to maximum 60 days – 10 at a time upto six 
occasions during the entire service.
(b)	 30 days in a block of two years.
(c)	
S.No.(a) and (b) shall be in addition to the right 
of the Judicial Officers to encashupto 300 days 
EL at the time of retirement.
3.	
In case of officers who have retired and while granting 
leave encashment at the time of retirement, the leave 
encashment availed during service stand adjusted 
shall be paid the amount of the so adjusted earned 
leave, at the time of retirement as explained in the 
example above, within a period of three months from 
the date of acceptance of the report.”
37.	 The report submitted by the SNJPC in regard to the earned leave 
encashment is accepted.
8.	
Electricity and Water Charges
38.	 The SNJPC has made the following recommendations:
“1.	
No change in the percentage of reimbursement. The 50% 
of reimbursement formula recommended by FNJPC and 
reiterated by the JPC shall continue.
2.	
The ceiling in terms of units of electricity and the quantity 
of water consumed
shall be as follows:
Designation
Electricity Units
Water Quantity
District Judges
8000 units per annum
420 Kls per annum
Civil Judges
6000 units per annum
336 Kls per annum
348
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
3.	
Reimbursement of electricity and water charges shall be on 
the quarterly basis on production of proof of payment of the 
billed amount.
4.	
This allowance shall be available at the enhanced rates w.e.f. 
01.01.2020.”
39.	 The SNJPC duly considered the objections. While some High 
Courts suggested the continuance of the existing system of 50% 
reimbursement, others suggested reimbursement at 75%, while still 
others at 100%. The High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand 
suggested the fixation of a ceiling on the number of units. The Union 
of India and almost all States except Jharkhand and Kerala have 
accepted the recommendation of SNJPC. The State of Jharkhand 
recommended a ceiling of Rs 1,250 per month for electricity and 
water charges. 
40.	 Having considered the recommendation, we are of the view that it 
should be accepted and it is ordered accordingly.
9.	
Higher Qualification Allowance
41.	 The SNJPC noted that for acquiring higher qualifications in law, 
specialized study of the subjects concerned is involved and the 
acquisition of such qualifications in the nature of a post graduate or 
doctoral degree will improve the quality of work of a judicial officer. 
The recommendations of the SNJPC are summarized below:
“1.	
The Judicial Officers shall be granted three advance 
increments for acquiring higher qualification i.e. post- 
graduation in law and one more advance increment if he 
acquires Doctorate in
Law.
2.	
The advance increments once granted for post-graduation 
degree or Doctorate in law shall not be again granted if, 
in future, the officer acquires post graduate or Doctorate 
degree in any other subject.
3.	
The advance increments shall be available to the officer 
who had acquired the post-graduation degree or Doctorate 
either before recruitment or at any time subsequent thereto 
while in service.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
349
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
4.	
The advance increments shall be granted from the date 
of initial recruitment, if the officer has already acquired the 
post-graduation degree or Doctorate and from the date 
of acquiring the post-graduation or Doctorate degree, if 
acquired after joining the service.
5.	
The advance increments shall be made available to the 
officers only and only if the higher qualification has been 
acquired through regular studies (full time or part time) 
and not through distant learning programmes.
6.	
The benefit of advance increments shall not be extended 
at the ACP stage (ACP I or II). However, the advance 
increment shall be available when the Officer is promoted 
from Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) to Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and from 
Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) to District Judge cadre.
7.	
The advance increments shall be available in the District 
Judge Cadre from District Judge (Entry Level) to District 
Judge (Selection Grade) and from District Judge (Selection 
Grade) to District Judge (Super Time Scale).
8.	
The advance increments for all practical purposes shall be 
part of salary and Dearness Allowance shall be available 
on the same.”
42.	 The recommendation made by the SNJPC that the benefit of advance 
increment shall not be extended at the ACP stage appears to be 
covered by the order of this Court dated 30 September 2022 in State 
of Maharashtra v Tejwant Singh Sandhu13 where this Court held:
“The short
question which is posed for consideration of this 
Court is whether the judicial officers who have acquired 
the the degree of LL.M. are entitled to the benefit of an 
additional increment? It is the case on behalf of the State 
that once the concerned Judicial Officer is getting the 
benefit of ACP, is not entitled to the additional increment on 
acquiring the additional qualification of LL.M. The aforesaid 
cannot be accepted. The grant of ACP has nothing to 
do with the benefit of additional increment on acquiring 
13	
SLP(C) 1041 of 2020
350
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
theadditional qualification like LL.M. Even otherwise, the 
issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in 
Bharat Kumar Shantilal Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat & 
Anr. (2014)15 SCC 305.
In view of the above, there is no substance in the present 
Special Leave Petition and the same deserves to be 
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.”
43.	 There is no justification for denying the benefit of advance increments 
at the ACP stage. The object and purpose of ACP is to prevent 
stagnation. On the other hand, the object and purpose of advance 
increments for acquiring higher qualifications is to improve judicial 
performance. Hence, the restrictive condition imposed by the 
SNJPC in regard to non-extension of advance increments at the 
ACP stage is not accepted. The advance increments for acquiring 
higher qualifications shall also be made available to officers who 
have acquired their degrees through distance learning programmes. 
44.	 Subject to the above clarifications, the recommendation of the 
SNJPC is accepted.
10.	 Hill Area/Tough Location Allowance
45.	 The SNJPC has made the following recommendations:
“1.	
Hill Area/Tough Location Allowance @Rs.5000/- per month 
shall be paid to the Judicial Officers posted in hill areas/
tough locations.
2.	
More beneficial provision, if any, already applicable to the 
officials of the State/UT shall be extended to the Judicial 
officers.
3.	
In case of doubt, whether a
particular area can be 
considered to be hilly or tough location area, decision of 
the High Court shall be followed in relation to the Judicial 
officers.
4.	
This allowance shall be available w.e.f. 01.01.2016.”
46.	 The recommendation is accepted. All High Courts are directed to 
specify the areas classifiable as hill areas/tough locations within a 
period of two months from the date of this order.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
351
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
11.	 Home Orderly/Domestic Help Allowance
47.	 The SNJPC has made the following recommendations:
“1.	
The Home-cum-office orderly allowance shall be available 
to the serving Judicial officers at the following rates :
District Judges : minimum wages for one unskilled 
worker in the concerned State/UT subject to minimum of 
Rs.10,000/- per month
Civil Judges : 60% of the minimum wages for one unskilled 
worker in the concerned State/UT subject to minimum of 
Rs.7,500/- per month.
2.	
Judicial officers getting higher allowance on this account 
by virtue of the orders issued by some States, they may 
continue to draw the same.
3.	
The allowance at the aforesaid rates shall be available 
to the Judicial Officers w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in States where 
they are getting the same prior to 01.01.2016 and in other 
cases, w.e.f. 01.01.2020.
4.	
The Judicial officers provided with Group D employee as 
an Attender/Peon/office subordinate for residential duties 
may exercise their option either to continue with the 
present system and forego the allowance that has been 
recommended or to claim the allowance instead of availing 
the services of the official Attender/Peon.
5(a).	The payment of home orderly allowance should not result 
in discontinuance of practice, if any, of deputing the Office 
Peons/Attenders or other Group D employee during nights 
at the residences of (i) Magistrates who are called upon 
to attend
the Judicial work at times during night times. (ii) 
the Office Peon/Attender or such other Group D employee 
deputed for night duty at the residence of Judicial officer 
living in the areas generally considered to be disturbed 
or security risk areas or outsourced security guards to 
be deployed in such areas and (iii) such personnel can 
also be deputed to the residence of Principal District 
Judge or equivalent rank officer having administrative 
responsibilities.
352
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(b)	 The deployment of Peons/Attenders for such residential 
duties shall be subject to the availability of Group D/Class 
IV personnel and without detriment to Court related duties.
6.	
Drawing up a panel of Home Orderlies/residential 
attendants/sevaks appointed on consolidated salary 
equivalent to minimum wages and allotting them to the 
Judicial officers (as suggested by the Madras High Court) 
can be thought of as an alternative subject to the decision 
taken in this regard by the concerned High Court. However, 
in such a case, Home Orderly allowance cannot be claimed.
7a.	 Domestic Help Allowance to the pensioners and family 
pensioners shall be available at the following rates from 
01.01.2016 :
Pensioner : Rs.9,000/- per month
Family pensioners : Rs.7,500/- per month
7b.	 This allowance shall stand increased by 30% on completion 
of five years from 01.01.2016 that is, w.e.f. 01.01.2021.
8.	
The allowance shall be drawn on the self certification of 
the Judicial Officer/Pensioner/Family Pensioner.”
48.	 We accept the recommendations of the SNJPC.
12.	 House Rent Allowance and Residential Quarters
49.	 The allowance under the above head has the following components:
(a)	 Residential Quarters:
The SNJPC took note of the fact that there is a dearth of residential 
government quarters and that securing suitable accommodation has 
become an acute problem for judicial officers. The SNJPC made the 
following
recommendations:
1.	
The State Governments should urgently take up construction 
of the residential quarters for the Judicial Officers and the 
progress of construction be monitored by this Court.
2.	
The Judicial Officer is to be provided accommodation or 
requisitioned private accommodation within one month of 
taking charge of the post.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
353
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
3.	
If the Judicial Officer is not provided with the government 
accommodation or requisitioned private accommodation 
within one month, then the Judicial Officer may secure 
private accommodation and should be paid rent in the 
following terms:
a.	
If the rent of the private accommodation is within the 
admissible house rent allowance mentioned below, no 
fixation of rent is required. But the concerned Judicial 
Officer has to certify the actual rent being paid.
b.	
If the rent of the private accommodation is more 
than permissible house rent allowance, the rent 
shall be assessed by Principal District Judge with 
the assistance of PWD/R&B officials. 
c.	
If the difference between the permissible house rent 
allowance and the rent assessed is more than 15% 
and Principal District Judge may seek approval of 
High Court for payment of the said amount unless 
the officer is ready to pay the differential cost.
4.	
The minimum plinth area for the residential accommodation 
shall be 2500 sq. ft. for District Judge and 2000 sq. ft. for 
Civil Judge. However, The High Court administration have 
the discretion to sanction the design with higher plinth area.
(b)	 House Rent Allowance
The SNJPC noticed that different rates of HRA are prevalent in 
different cities. Taking all aspects into account, the SNJPC was of 
the view that the Central Government notified rates may be adopted 
by the States and made the
following recommendations:
(i)	
Judicial officers who are allotted official quarters for residence 
shall not be entitled to HRA;
(ii)	
Judicial officers residing in their own houses, including the house 
of a parent or spouse, shall also be entitled for the recommended 
HRA with effect from 01.01.2016 after obtaining permission from 
the High Court to reside in their own house and judicial officers 
already residing in hired accommodation will be entitled to the 
recommended HRA with effect from 01.01.2020, subject to the 
actual rent paid within the said ceiling;
354
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(iii)	 The Office of the Principal District Judge or equivalent shall 
pay rent directly to the landlord, in which case, the officer is 
not eligible to draw HRA; and
(iv)	 The SNJPC rates of HRA should be applicable to all Judicial 
Officers as per the notification dated 07.07.2017 which was 
issued after the VIIth Central Pay Commission (CPC) by the 
Central Government: 
“
Rates of HRA/pm as % of basic pay
X
24%
Y
16%
Z
8%
However, the minimum rates prescribed are 5400/-, 3600/- and 
1800/- respectively. And the rate will be changed in accordance with 
the change in Dearness Allowance in the following terms: 
Classification of 
Cities
Rates of HRA/pm as % of 
basic pay
When DA 
crosses
X
27% 
25%
30%
50%
Y
18%
25%
20%
50%
Z
9%
25%
10%
50%
‘Z’ Category is unclassified at present and the High Court is at liberty 
to upgrade and add the cities in different classes.”
(c)	 Furniture and Air Conditioner Allowance
The SNJPC was apprised of the fact that some furniture is provided to 
the judicial officers in certain places, but there is a lack of uniformity. 
The SNJPC made the following recommendations:
“4.	
Furniture grant of Rs.1.25 lakhs every five years shall 
be provided to the Judicial Officer subject to production 
of proof of purchase by the Judicial Officer. Household 
electrical appliances can also be purchased by availing 
of the said grant. The Officers having not less than two
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
355
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
years of service will also be eligible for this allowance. The 
option to purchase the furniture being used by the officer 
at the depreciated rate shall be available at the time of 
fresh grant or retirement.
4.1	 Apart from the furniture grant, one air-conditioner shall be 
provided at the residence of every Judicial Officer once 
in every five years.”
(d)	 Residential quarters - maintenance
In order to obviate the problems faced by judicial officers in securing 
services of electricians, plumber, carpenters, sanitary workers and 
masons and bearing in mind that the Public Works Department, 
which is in-charge of maintenance, does not have sufficient funds 
to carry out the work, the SNJPC recommended that an amount of 
Rs Ten lakhs be made available to each Principal District Judge 
on the basis of a proposal sent by the Registry of the High Court 
for the proper maintenance of the residential quarters and that the 
Government must sanction the amount proposed within two months 
from the date of the receipt of their proposal.
(e)	 Guest House/Transit Accommodation
The SNJPC has been in agreement with the suggestions made 
by the Associations that guest house facility should be provided 
exclusively for judicial officers bearing in mind the problem faced in 
securing accommodation in State guest houses. While the SNJPC 
was aware that it is not possible to construct guest houses in all 
districts,
it emphasized the need to have a guest house-cum-transit 
accommodation at least in cities and major towns. In that regard, 
the following recommendations were made:
“17.2	
The Commission does not expect that the Guest 
houses for the Judiciary should be constructed in 
all Dist. Headquarters irrespective of the size of the 
District. The travails of the Judicial Officers in securing 
suitable accommodation for stay is undeniable at 
least in the cities and major important towns. There 
is every need to construct Guest houses-cum-transit 
homes. One wing can be earmarked as a transit home 
where the transferred Officer can stay initially for a
356
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
few weeks till s(he) finds residential accommodation – 
Official or private. The Guest house-cum-transit home 
facility is a long felt need of the Judicial Officers. The 
Commission recommends that the Guest houses/transit 
homes shall be constructed in a phased manner by 
the Governments concerned. The officials concerned 
shall act in coordination with the Registry of the High 
Court to identify the places. The details such as number 
and size of rooms and the amenities shall be finalized 
after mutual discussion. As regards the first phase of 
such construction, the State Governments/UTs may 
be directed to initiate action within a time frame of six 
months and necessary financial allocation has to be 
made for this purpose during the financial year 2020-21. 
Needless to say that after construction, the High Courts 
will issue necessary instructions regarding maintenance, 
minimal catering arrangement, rent to be charged etc.”
Of the above five components of house rent related allowances, those 
at (c) (Furniture and Air Conditioner Allowance) and (d) (Maintenance) 
have been introduced for the first time. The other components form 
part of the service conditions of judicial officers. 
50.	 We find reason and justification for the addition of the two components. 
All the components which have been suggested by the SNJPC are 
integral to the proper performance of the duties by judicial officers 
and are accordingly
accepted.
13.	 Leave Travel Concession(LTC)/Home Travel Concession(HTC)
51.	 The FNJPC recommended that LTC should be provided once in a 
block of four years to any place in India. However, it laid down a 
threshold of a completion of five years of service before availing of 
LTC. The FNJPC also recommended that HTC be extended once in 
two years and the entitlement for the journey would be according to 
the rules of the respective States. The recommendation was accepted 
in 2002 by the decision in the All India Judges Association case 
by this Court. 
52.	 The JPC, while reiterating these recommendations, proposed two 
modifications:
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
357
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
(i)	
A judicial officer may be permitted to avail of LTC on completion 
of two years of service and on completion of probation (thereby 
relaxing the requirement of five years of minimum service); and
(ii)	
The restriction on the availing of LTC in the last year of service 
was dispensed with.
53.	 While reiterating the recommendation for HTC, the JPC suggested 
an additional HTC if a judicial officer was subjected to two or more 
transfers in the same cadre from one end of the State to another 
for administrative reasons.
54.	 The SNJPC considered the views of the High Courts and of the 
Associations. On considering all aspects of the matter, the SNJPC 
made the following recommendations:
“i.	
Payment of one month’s salary for not availing the LTC 
is unwarranted and it would defeat the objective of LTC.
ii.	
Encashment of 10 days earned leave while availing LTC 
(not HTC) (subject to the maximum of 60 days) can 
continue. The same will be in addition to encashment 
of 300 days at the time of retirement and 30 days in a 
block of two years.
iii(a).	As regards frequency of LTC, the Judicial Officers may 
be permitted to avail one LTC and one HTC in a block 
of 3 years.
(b)	 As far as fresh recruits are concerned, the HTC shall be 
allowed 2 times in the first block of 3 years. However, 
the block of 3 years will commence on completion of the 
period prescribed for probation (not necessarily declared).
iv(a).	The Judicial officers irrespective of their rank shall be 
allowed to travel by air and the reimbursement shall be 
made subject to the condition that the tickets have been 
purchased either directly from the Airlines or from the 
agents authorized, namely, Ashoka Travels, Balmer and 
Lawrie and IRCTC by the Central/State Government 
subject to further addition or deletion of the authorized 
agent by the Central/State Government.
358
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(b)	 The other details such as class of travel, advance etc. shall 
be governed by the respective Rules/Orders of States/UTs.
v.	
The Judicial officers may be allowed to carry forward LTC 
anywhere in India beyond retirement for a period of one year.
vi.	
There is no justification for extending the LTC/HTC facility 
to the retired Judicial officers.
vii.	 As regards the foreign travel to SAARC countries, the 
District Judges and Senior Civil Judges may be allowed 
the said facility on two occasions in their service career 
and only economy class travel shall be allowed.
viii.	 The Judicial officers shall not be required to avail of 
earned leave only, for LTC/HTC purpose and they may 
be permitted to avail of casual leave as a prefix and suffix 
to the extent of two days.”
55.	 LTC/HTC were components already provided for by the FNJPC and 
JPC. The recommendations of the SNJPC are on a continuum. We 
accept the recommendations, save and except for foreign travel to 
SAARC countries which shall be deleted.
14.	 Medical Allowance/Medical Facilities
56.	 The subject matter of the above allowance/facility has been duly 
considered in the earlier reports of the FNJPC and JPC.Before 
proceeding further, it would be appropriate to extract from the 
recommendations of the SNJPC in regard to medical allowances 
and medical facilities. The recommendations read as follows:
“1.	
Fixed medical allowance shall be payable @Rs.3,000/- p.m.
to the serving Judicial Officers with effect from 01.01.2016.
2.	
Fixed medical allowance shall be payable @Rs.4,000/- 
to the pensioners and family pensioners with effect from 
01.01.2016.
3.	
The spouse or other dependents of Judicial Officers 
drawing family pension shall also be eligible for medical 
facilities/reimbursement at par with the pensioners of 
the judiciary.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
359
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
4(a)	 The necessity of reference from the Medical Officer 
of a Government hospital shall be dispensed with. 
Straightaway, the Judicial Officers including pensioners/
family pensioners shall be entitled to have consultations/
treatment in the Government notified/empanelled private 
hospitals/Pathological Labs and seek reimbursement by 
submitting the bills as per the usual procedure (which is 
now being followed).
4(b)	 In regard to Judicial Officers governed by DGEHS or 
CGHS, the existing procedure which is quite simple and 
systematic, can be followed.
4(c)	 The Principal District Judges or Registry of High Court [in 
respect of Principal District Judge] shall be empowered 
to address credit letters to the concerned hospitals where 
the Judicial Officer or Judicial Pensioner/Family Pensioner 
has been or to be admitted as inpatient.
4(d)	 For the Pensioners and Family Pensioners, a Medical Card 
on the lines of what is being issued in Delhi as shown in 
Appendix III shall be issued by the Principal District Judge.
4(e)	 The expenditure incurred towards inpatient treatment or 
for serious ailments requiring more or less continuous 
treatment shall be processed and sanctioned by the 
Principal District Judges or other authorized Officer of 
that rank or as the case may be by the Registry of the 
High Courts.
4(f)	 In the case of emergency, the Judicial Officer, serving & 
retired as well as the
family pensioner can take treatment in 
any nearest private hospital – not necessarily, Government 
notified hospitals and seek reimbursement as per the usual 
procedure. If necessary, Credit letter shall be issued for 
this purpose.
5.	
On submission of the estimate given by the recognized/
empanelled hospital, 80% shall be sanctioned as advance, 
subject to preliminary scrutiny by the Principal District 
Judge or a District Judge of equivalent rank authorized 
by the Registry of the High Court. The balance shall be
360
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
reimbursed on certification by the designated Civil Surgeon 
or Official of the Directorate of Medical & Health Services 
as the case may be. If the Government approved rates are 
not available for any particular item, the certifying officer 
shall have due regard to the rates generally charged in the 
hospitals concerned. Though there needs to be scrutiny 
before sanctioning the payment in view of the tendency 
to exaggerate the estimates, the extent of disallowance 
shall be minimal and the reasons for disallowance shall be 
disclosed by the certifying authority. The bills sent by the 
District Judge for scrutiny of the designated Civil Surgeon/
Officer of Directorate shall be cleared within a maximum 
period of one month from the date of receipt.
6(a)	 The retired Judicial Officers and the family pensioners 
who have settled down in another State shall have the 
facility to claim medical reimbursement/advance from the 
State from which s(he) is drawing pension/family pension.
6(b)	 The cost of treatment including room charges/tests 
undergone in any Government/Government notified/
recognized hospitals/pathological labs in an emergency 
or otherwise shall be reimbursed to the serving officers 
on tour (official or private purpose) to another State or 
settled in another State after retirement even though it is 
not recognized hospital/lab in the State in which the officer 
is serving or had served.
7.	
The Registry of the
High Court shall examine whether 
the notified/empanelled hospitals sufficiently cater to the 
needs of the Judicial Officers including the pensioners/
family pensioners and send proposals to the Government 
for notifying additional hospitals/pathological Labs to the 
extent it is considered necessary.
8.	
To avoid delays in processing and sanctioning the bills 
for want of funds, the Registry of High court shall take 
prompt action in addressing the Government for releasing 
additional funds and the Finance Department of the State 
shall take immediate action by way of making available 
the additional funds to the High Court on this account.”
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
361
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
We analyze the recommendations of the SNJPC below.
Fixed Allowance
57.	 The SNJPC has justifiably increased the fixed medical allowance 
to Rs 3,000 per month for serving judicial officers and to Rs 4,000 
per month to pensioners and family pensioners with effect from 
01.01.2016. This recommendation was made in view of the fact 
that the FNJPC had recommended a fixed medical allowance of Rs 
300 per month, which was increased by the JPC to Rs 1,000 per 
month for serving judicial officers. The JPC enhanced the medical 
allowance to Rs 1,500 per month for retired judicial officers and Rs 
750 per month for family pensioners. The recommendation made 
by the SNJPC for uniformity in the medial allowance payable to 
pensioners and family pensioners is wholesome and is consistent with 
Article 14. Of the Constitution. There is no valid basis to distinguish 
between pensioners and family pensioners for the payment of a fixed 
medical allowance. Moreover, an increase of Rs 1,000 per month for 
pensioners as compared to serving judicial officers is also justified 
considering the fact that the pensioners as a class would need more 
medical attention with advancing years. 
Medical Facilities and Reimbursement
58.	 The medical facilities to be provided to serving judicial officers, 
retired judicial officers and family pensioners differ from State to 
State. There are three broad models which are followed in
the case 
of government servants:
(a)	 Access to a health scheme like CGHS under which there are 
empaneled hospitals;
(b)	 Access to government hospitals and thereafter upon following 
a procedure of reference; and
(c)	
Cashless facilities pursuant to group insurance policies.
59.	 The FNJPC recommended that the judicial officers should also be 
given similar medical facilities as are being given to the members 
of the State legislature. It recommended that the State Government 
should notify the list of hospitals for medical treatment of judicial
362
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
officers and their families. A similar benefit was extended to retired 
judges. The FNJPC’s recommendations were accepted by this Court 
in All India Judges Association v Union of India14. 
60.	 The JPC reiterated the recommendations of the FNJPC. Its 
recommendations were accepted in All India Judges Association 
v Union of India15. 
61.	 While noting the varying practices which are followed across the 
country, the SNJPC observed that while the CGHS and DGEHS are 
working well, difficulties are faced by judicial officers in several States 
where there is neither a proper empanelment of doctors, hospitals 
and labs nor is there an effective procedure for reimbursement of 
medical bills. It specifically noted the case of the State of Maharashtra 
where the earlier orders of this Court were not observed. The SNJPC 
further noted that in the absence of proper empanelment, referral by 
a Medical Officer of a government hospital is needed for treatment 
in private hospitals. The SNJPC has taken note of the grievance 
of the judicial officers while formulating its recommendations. The 
grievances which were projected by the judicial officers included 
the following:
“1)	 Lack of adequate number of notified hospitals/pathological 
labs.
2)	
Non-availability of cashless treatment for in-hospital 
treatment even in case of serious ailments and emergency.
3)	
The Civil Surgeon or Directorate of Medical/Health 
services to whom the
claims are referred to are enforcing 
unjustifiable cuts.
4)	
Delay in processing/passing the bills in case of high claims.
5)	
Insistence of Essentiality Certificate even for medicines 
purchased on the basis of the prescription issued by 
Registered Medical Practitioner or even the Consultant 
of the notified hospital.
14	
(2002) 4 SCC 247
15	
(2010) 14 SCC 720
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
363
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
6)	
Procedural problems being faced by the Judicial Officers 
who have settled down in other States after retirement.
7)	
Non-specification of premier hospitals of repute in other 
States for the purpose of availing reimbursable medical 
treatment in cases of serious ailments.
8)	
Non-extension of medical facilities to the family pensioners.”
62.	 During the course of the hearing, the attention of this Court has been 
drawn to the situation in the State of Uttar Pradesh by members of 
the Association representing former judges. It has been submitted that 
the hospitals which have been empaneled by the State Government 
for the purpose of cashless facilities are providing sub-standard 
treatment. As a result, the cashless facilities cannot be availed of 
by the officers. It has been submitted that since a sufficiently large 
number of hospitals is empaneled under CGHS (nearly 300 hospitals 
in the State of Uttar Pradesh alone), the State Government may be 
directed to follow the hospitals which are empaneled for the purpose 
of CGHS so as to ensure that the quality of treatment which is 
extended to the judicial officers and retired judicial officers as well 
as family pensioners is of a requisite standard.
63.	 The primary concern which has been expressed by serving judicial 
officers and by retired officers is that the recommendations made by 
the SNJPC appear to lower the bench-mark or standard set
by the 
FNJPC of entitling the judicial officers to the same medical facilities 
as those provided to members of the legislative assembly.
64.	 Mr K Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae, has submitted that this may 
not be an appropriate manner of reading the recommendations 
made by the SNJPC. According to him, the recommendations of 
the SNJPC should be read holistically and harmoniously with those 
of the FNJPC. Hence, the recommendations which were made by 
the FNJPC to have empaneled doctors, hospitals or labs and the 
recommendations to do away with the referral system must be 
viewed in addition to the standards which were set by SNJPC. We 
find force on the submission.
65.	 The substantive recommendations which are made by the SNJPC 
are accepted. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the 
Constitution, we institutionalize the process issuing the following 
directions in the segment of this judgment which follows.
364
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
15.	 Newspaper and Magazine Allowances
66.	 The following recommendations have been made by the SNJPC:
“1.	
Reimbursement for newspaper and magazines shall be 
Rs.1000/- for District Judges (two newspapers and two 
magazines) and Rs.700/- for Civil Judges (two newspapers 
and one magazine).
2.	
The reimbursement shall be on half yearly basis from 
January to June and July to December, on the basis of 
self certification.
3.	
The allowance at the above mentioned rates shall be 
available from 01.01.2020.
4.	
More beneficial provision already in operation in any State 
shall continue.”
67.	 The recommendations are accepted.
16.	 Risk Allowance
68.	 The SNJPC has considered it reasonable to grant risk allowance. 
The SNJPC has issued the following recommendations:
“1.	
Risk allowance shall be made available to the Judicial 
Officers working in the States of Jammu & Kashmir and 
insurgency affected North East States at the same rate 
as is available to the Civilian Government officials working 
in those areas.
2.	
The allowance will be available w.e.f. 01.01.2020.”
69.	 The recommendation is accepted.
17.	 Robe Allowance
70.	 The SNJPC has noted that the pay and facilities of judicial officers 
have considerably improved in view of the recommendations made 
by the Judicial Commissions. Hence, the situation which existed 
at the time when the FNJPC had examined the matter “no longer 
exists now”. Hence, it was of the view that it
would be appropriate 
if judicial officers do not raise such a demand. The Seventh CPC 
recommended a uniform allowance only to those employees who are 
required to wear a prescribed dress in the course of the discharge 
of their duties. However, having regard to the practice which was in
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
365
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
force for a considerable time and the essential nature of the robe as 
apparel for Judges, the SNJPC recommended a “modest increase of 
the allowance, with the hope that such demand for robe allowance 
will not be raised before the next Commission”. Consequently, the 
SNJPC recommended that:
(i)	
An allowance of Rs 12,000 will be payable once in three years 
with effect from 01.01.2016; and
(ii)	
The demand for the robe allowance may not be raised before 
the next Commission.
71.	 We are inclined to accept and accordingly accept the above 
recommendations.
18.	 Special Pay for Administrative Work
72.	 The SNJPC noted that judicial officers in-charge of certain courts/
tribunals have administrative responsibilities for which extra time 
outside the court working hours has to be spent. This is especially 
so in the case of Principal District and Sessions Judges or other 
District Judges having similar responsibilities. The SNJPC noted that 
Principal District Judges in the districts and officers of equivalent 
ranks in the cities are required to inspect courts, monitor the progress 
of cases, assess the performance of officers, conduct discreet 
inquiries in vigilance cases, and send reports to the High Courts. 
The administrative work, as the SNJPC noted, is considerable and 
extra time has to be devoted both at the residence and office for 
carrying out such duties.
73.	 Bearing in mind the additional
administrative duties which have to 
be discharged by judicial officers, the SNJPC made the following 
recommendations:
“1.	
Special Pay for Judicial officers doing administrative work 
shall be payable to :
a)	
Principal District and Sessions Judges : Rs.7000/- per 
month 
b)	
Other District Judges including I Additional District Judges 
entrusted with administrative work who have to generally 
spend time beyond Court working hours : Rs. 3500/- per 
month.
366
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
c)	
District Judges presiding over Special Courts and Tribunals 
having independent administrative responsibilities : 
Rs.3500/- per month.
d)	
CJMs and Principal Senior, Junior Civil Judges and other 
Judicial Officers having administrative responsibilities 
being in charge of independent Courts with filing powers 
: Rs.2000/- per month.
2.	
The Special Pay shall be available w.e.f. 01.01.2019.”
74.	 The SNJPC has adduced a sound rationale for the above 
recommendation. The recommendation is accordingly accepted.
19.	 Sumptuary Allowance
75.	 The SNJPC has made the following recommendations:
1.	
The sumptuary allowance shall be available to the Judicial 
Officers at the following rates :
District Judges 	
Rs. 7,800/- per month
Civil Judges (Sr. Div.)	
Rs. 5,800/- per month
Civil Judges (Jr. Div.)	
Rs. 3,800/- per month
2.	
The allowance shall be available w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
3.	
The following categories of Judicial Officers shall get Rs.1,000/- 
(One thousand) more by virtue of their status or the additional 
responsibilities they shoulder.

●
Principal District Judge in-charge of administration in the 
Districts/Cities.

●
District Judges in selection grade and super time-scale.

●
Director of Judicial Academy/Judicial Training Institute/
Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority.
●
Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
4.	
No sumptuary allowance shall be payable to retired Judicial 
Officers.
76.	 The report of the SNJPC notes that the Seventh CPC recommended 
the abolition of sumptuary allowance while observing that expenditure 
on hospitality should be treated as office expenditure and that the 
Ministry of Finance shall lay down the ceilings for various levels. In 
that context, the SNJPC observed:
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
367
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
“5.	
The VII CPC recommended abolition of sumptuary 
allowance and observed that the expenditure on hospitality 
should be treated as office expenditure and the Ministry 
of Finance shall lay down the ceilings for various levels. 
Accepting the recommendation of CPC, the sumptuary/
entertainment allowance was abolished w.e.f. 30.06.2017. 
At the same time, by the Office Memorandum dated 
22.09.2017, the Government of India (Department of 
Expenditure, Ministry of Finance) having observed that 
“the hospitality related expenditure is now to be incurred 
as office expenditure”, conveyed the President’s decision 
prescribing the ceiling of office expenditure on hospitality 
only for a few dignitaries and officials. The Table appended 
to the O.M. is as follows:
Sl.No.
Designation
Existing Rates 
of sumptuary/
Entertainment 
Allowance 
(Rs. per month)
Prescribed ceiling 
in respect of 
hospitality related 
office expenditure 
(Rs. per month)
1.
Chief Justice of India
20000/-
45000/-
2.
Judges of the 
Supreme
Court and Chief 
Justice of
High Courts
15000/-
34000/-
3.
Judges of the High 
Court
12000/-
27000/-
4.
Cabinet Secretary
10000/-
23000/-
5.
Training 
Establishments
Director or Head
3500/-
8000/-
Course Directors
2500/-
5700/-
Counsellors
2000/-
4500/-
6
Judicial Officers 
in Supreme Court 
Registry
At the same rate 
as they were 
getting in the 
parent office
Existing rates may 
be multiplied by a
factor of 2.25”
368
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
77.	 The SNJPC rejected the demand of the Association in regard to the 
quantum of increase in sumptuary allowance and decided to adopt 
an increase of 2.25 times, broadly speaking, as the guiding principle 
to arrive at this conclusion, based on the yardstick of annual inflation 
and increase of points in the consumer price index.
The increase which has been granted by the SNJPC is reasonable 
and commends itself for acceptance. We accordingly accept the 
recommendation.
20.	 Telephone Facility
78.	 The following recommendations have been made by the SNJPC:
“1.	
The Judicial Officers shall be provided with the following 
telephone facilities:
i.	
Residential Telephone (Landline) :
(a)	 The landline telephone and broadband facility (by the 
same or different service providers) shall be provided at 
the residence of the Judicial Officers with the permitted 
user as follows :
District Judges : Rs.1500/- per month
Civil Judges : Rs.1000/- per month
inclusive of rent, calls (local and STD both) and internet use.
(b)	 At places where broadband facility is not available, the 
permissible user shall be :
District Judges : Rs.1000/- per month
Civil Judges : Rs.750/- per month
inclusive of rent and calls (local and STD both).
ii.	
Mobile Phone :
(a)	 The provision of mobile phone (handset) with internet 
shall be as follows:
District Judge : Rs.30,000/-
Civil Judges (Jr. & Sr. Divisions) : Rs.20,000/-
And the permissible user shall
be :
District Judges : Rs.2000/- per month
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
369
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
Civil Judges : Rs.1500/- per month
inclusive of internet data package.
(b)	 At the request of the Judicial Officers, the mobile phone 
handset shall be replaced once in three years.
(c)	
The Judicial Officers shall be given option to retain the old 
mobile phone handset at a price to be determined as per 
the guidelines prescribed by the Registry of High Court.
(d)	 The existing facilities in so far as they are more beneficial 
by virtue of the order issued by some of the State 
Governments/UTs shall be continued notwithstanding the 
above recommendations.
iii.	
Office Telephone:
Regarding telephone connection to the office, the present 
arrangement shall continue.”
79.	 The recommendation is reasonable and is accepted.
21.	 Transfer Grant
80.	 The summary of the recommendations of the SNJPC reads as follows:
“1.	
On transfer, the composite transfer grant shall be equivalent 
to one month’s basic pay.
2.	
If the transfer is to a place at a distance of 20 kilometres 
or less or within the same city (if it involves actual change 
of residence), the transfer grant shall be 1/3 rd of the 
basic pay.
3.	
For the transportation of personal effects, the O.M. 
dated 13.07.2017 (annexed as Appendix I) issued by the 
Department of Expenditure; Government of India pursuant 
to the recommendations of VII CPC shall be applicable.
4.	
In case of transportation by road, the admissible amount 
shall be Rs.50/- per
km. inclusive of labour charges for 
loading and unloading or the actual whichever is lower. 
The said amount shall be raised by 25% when the DA 
increases by 50%.
5.	
The recommendations will come into effect from 01.01.2016.
370
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6.	
The Officers who have undergone transfer(s) after 
01.01.2016 and their claims for transfer grant paid as 
per pre-revised pay scales, shall be paid the differential 
amount on the basis of revised pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016.”
81.	 The above recommendations are reasonable and are accordingly 
accepted.
Institutionalization
82.	 We are of the considered view that a framework has to be set 
up under the auspices of every High Court for institutionalizing 
the implementation of the orders of this Court with respect to the 
service conditions of the district judiciary and for implementing the 
recommendations of the SNJPC, as approved. Institutionalizing the 
mechanism for enforcement and implementation will have several 
benefits which are set out below:
(a)	 The implementation of the orders of this Court will be streamlined. 
A Committee set up by this Court at the level of every High 
Court to act as a bridge between the High Court and the State 
Government will facilitate seamless implementation;
(b)	 Experience indicates that this Court is flooded with individual 
applications and grievances concerning pay and service 
conditions leading to multiplicity of proceedings and issues. 
This would be obviated by institutionalizing the process at the 
level of each High Court; and
(c)	
An institutionalized entity can act as a body for recording and 
archiving information and suggestions, maintaining a record of 
difficulties faced
in implementation and generating an institutional 
memory which will facilitate a consultative framework for the 
next Pay Commission.
83.	 Bearing in mind the above benefits, we hereby direct the constitution 
of a Committee in each High Court for overseeing the implementation 
of the recommendations of the SNJPC as approved by this Court. The 
Committee shall be called the ‘Committee for Service Conditions 
of the District Judiciary16’. The composition of the Committee shall 
consist of the following:
16	
“CSCDJ”
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
371
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
(i)	
Two Judges of the High Court to be nominated by the Chief 
Justice of which one should be a Judge who has previously 
served as a member of the district judiciary;
(ii)	
The Law Secretary/Legal Remembrancer;
(iii)	 The Registrar General of the High Court who shall serve as an 
ex officio Secretary of the Committee; and
(iv)	 A retired judicial officer in the cadre of District Judge to be 
nominated by the Chief Justice who shall act as a nodal officer 
for the day to day redressal of grievances.
84.	 The senior most Judge nominated by the Chief Justice shall be 
the Chairperson of the Committee. The Chairperson may co-opt 
officers of the State Government, including the Secretaries in the 
Departments of Home, Finance, Health, Personnel and Public Works, 
when issues concerning these departments are being deliberated 
upon and implemented. The Chairperson of the Committee may 
at their discretion co-opt the Accountant General to ensure due 
implementation of the recommendations of the SNJPC, as approved 
by this Court. The Committee would be at liberty to consult with the 
representatives of the Judges’ Association or, as the case may be, 
the Retired Judges’ Association in the State.
85.	 The principal functions of the CSCDJ shall be to :
(i)	
Oversee the proper implementation of the recommendations of 
the SNJPC, including pay, pension, allowances and all allied 
matters as approved by this
Court by its orders;
(ii)	
Act as a single point nodal agency for the redressal of the 
grievances of the judicial officers, both serving and retired 
to secure the implementation of the recommendations of the 
SNJPC which have been approved by this Court; 
(iii)	 Develop an institutional mechanism for recording and archiving 
institutional concerns pertaining to pay, pension and service 
conditions of the district judiciary which shall aid in the 
consultative framework for subsequent Pay Commissions 
constituted for judicial officers; and
(iv)	 Ensure that hospitals of a requisite standard with necessary 
facilities are empaneled for every district in consultation with the 
Secretary in the Health Department of the State Government.
372
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Collectors of the districts shall render all necessary 
assistance in ensuring that the process of empanelment is 
duly streamlined. The process of empanelment shall ensure 
that the hospitals which are empaneled have a demonstrable 
track record and possess requisite medical facilities required 
for affording medical treatment of the requisite quality and care. 
The Committee may also ensure the empanelment of institutions 
for the purpose of carrying out medical investigations. The 
Committee will prescribe the benchmarks for empanelment. 
The Committee shall ensure that where medical care of the 
requisite standard for specified ailments is not available in 
the district concerned, treatment in respect of those ailments 
may be availed of elsewhere in an empaneled hospital. The 
Committee would be at liberty to take incidental measures 
covering situations where officers who have served in the State 
are residing outside the State. In such a case, the Committee 
may consider empanelment of hospitals outside the State so 
as to facilitate the availing of medical facilities. 
86.	 Each of the CSCDJs constituted under the auspices of the High 
Court shall consider the following:
(i)	
Formulating a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) with 
specified timelines for claims and disbursal of allowances as 
approved by this Court, including the payment of arrears of 
salary and pension to judicial officers, pensioners and family
pensioners; and
(ii)	
The SOP shall, inter alia, cover the following:
(a)	 The nodal agency for disbursement of allowances, arrears 
and other service and retiral benefits;
(b)	 Laying down a simplified and effective procedure for 
reimbursement and disbursement of claims;
(c)	
Providing contact details of the nodal agency at the district 
or State level;
(d)	 Publication of the SOP on the website of the High Court, 
together with the details of the nodal officer; and
(e)	 Maintenance of a database of retired Judges and family 
pensioners in the district judiciary with a process for 
periodical updating, at least on a quarterly basis.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
373
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors
87.	 All States and Union Territories shall now act in terms of the above 
directions expeditiously. Disbursements on account of arrears of 
salary, pension and allowances due and payable to judicial officers, 
retired judicial officers and family pensioners shall be computed and 
paid on or before 29 February 2024. The CSCDJs institutionalized 
in terms of the directions issued earlier shall monitor compliance. 
Each Committee working under the auspices of the High Court shall 
submit its report to this Court on or before 7 April 2024 through the 
Registrar General of the High Court. 
88.	 The CSCDJs shall also verify that the earlier orders of this Court in 
regard to the payment of arrears of salary and pension have been 
duly implemented.
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Result of the case: 
Directions issued.