Why Did the SC Dismiss Centre's Review Petition in District Judges' Pay Revision Case?

New Delhi: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice D.Y.Chandrachud and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, on April 6 dismissed the Union government’s review petition seeking reconsideration of its judgment in All India Judges Association v Union of India, delivered on July 22 last year.

In this judgment, the Supreme Court had considered the report of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC), the objections of the Union and the state governments against it, and held that the revision of the pay structure of the district judges, as recommended by the SNJPC, should be accepted.

Objections

One of the main objections to the revision of the pay structure as proposed by SNJPC is the application of the multiplier of 2.81 and above. The Supreme Court held that this objection was liable to be rejected for two reasons, namely, that the Seventh Central Pay Commission (VIIth CPC) has applied a multiplier of 2.81 in respect of certain categories of All India Service Officers; and that Justice Padmanabhan Committee actually applied a multiplier of 3.07.

The Supreme Court had reasoned in its judgment that the SNJPC adopted the Pay Matrix Method, as it had already been adopted by the VIIth CPC, whereas other methods were not tried and tested.

The Union government contended that the SNJPC report did not take into account the principle of rationalisation, which was required to be achieved by applying an “IoR” (Index of Rationalisation). The Union government as well as Manipur and Haryana governments submitted that the fundamental principle of enhanced responsibility and increased accountability with progressively higher posts and pay levels had not been considered. As a result, a uniform IoR of 2.81 for all levels in the hierarchy of judicial officers had been adopted, they told the court.

In particular, they contended that the SNJPC had disregarded the relevance of hierarchy and applied a multiplier of 2.81 for judicial officers, even though the same multiplier applies to judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. The VIIth CPC adopted it while making recommendations for the All India Services based on a progressive IoR, they told the court.

They further argued that if the order is not reviewed, it would amount to equating the higher district judiciary with constitutional courts and would bring district courts on par with the higher judiciary. Such a consequence should be avoided, as it would create an anomaly, they claimed.

The Union and the state governments further submitted that the scale of a high court judge is a fixed scale and not a span-based scale, and that the duties and responsibilities of the judicial officers at a lower level are not comparable with the onerous responsibility discharged by high court judges. Had the aspect of rationalisation and progressive upgradation been considered by the court, the approximate pay matrix based on IoR of 2.67 and 2.72 could have been worked out, they told the court.

The Union and the state governments suggested that pay parity for judicial officers across the country is not correct, as the nature of responsibilities discharged by them across the district courts in the entire country and the pendency of cases before them are not the same.

The Haryana government, citing Shetty Commission’s recommendations pointed out that the initial pay of civil judges was fixed at 12.5% higher than that of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers but now under the recommendations of the SNJPC, it would almost be double of the IAS officers. The Harayana government also claimed that there would be a substantial burden on the state exchequer, with other service cadre officers in the same pay band/structure also claiming parity. This would result in unnecessary litigation, it claimed.

The Uttar Pradesh government claimed that the implementation of the recommendations would increase the salary of judicial officers disproportionately and would compel the state governments and the Union government to face such demands in the future for applying the same multiplier for revising the salary of state and Union government employees.

The Union and state governments also raised other objections.

Court's reasoning

The Supreme Court explained in its order on Thursday, April 6, that the multiplier 2.81 signifies the ratio on the basis of which the salary of the judges of the district judiciary would be increased. This multiplier has been adopted by taking into account all the factors governing the conditions of service of judicial officers as well as their roles and responsibilities. The SNJPC considered the multiplier of 2.81 commensurate with the increase in salary of high court judges to maintain the ratio of mean pay percentage.

The three-judge bench explained on Thursday, April 6, that the SNJPC ensured the mean pay percentages spelt out by the First National Judicial Pay Commission (FNJPC), keeping in view the then existing pay of high court judges at Rs 26,000 remained intact. The said percentages were 45.3% for civil judge (junior division), 58.5% for civil judge (senior division); 71.6% for district judge (entry level); 80% for district judge (selection grade); and 91.7% for district judge (super time scale) of the salary of a high court judge. The FNJPC laid down that in case the salary of high court judges is revised upwards at any time, the pay scales of judicial officers in all these cadres have to be suitably revised upwards maintaining the said ratios.

The bench pointed out on Thursday, April 6, that the SNJPC drew up a Master Pay Scale by adopting the multiplier of 2.81 and maintaining the same ratios. The bench suggested that the rationale is succinctly explained in paragraph 12.2 of the second NJPC Report, and therefore, the salary of a district judge would not be at par or above the salary of a high court judge, at any time.

Representational image.

The bench suggested that the highest factor/multiplier in the VIIth CPC Pay Matrix of 2.81 is adopted uniformly for all cadres, keeping in view the established principle that the pay increase of the district judiciary shall, as far as possible, be commensurate with the extent of increase in the pay of the judges of high courts.

The VII CPC had adopted a graduated fitment factor ranging from 2.57 for entry-level officers to 2.81 for officers of the level of secretary to the Government of India. The bench explained that the SNJPC has chosen to uniformly apply the multiplier of 2.81 (the highest multiplier in the VIIth CPC matrix) as opposed to 2.72 (the next lower factor) with an intent to balance the legitimate expectations of the members of the judiciary.

The bench reasoned that the extent of the increase in pay of judicial officers must be commensurate with the quantum of increase in the pay of high court judges. This principle, the bench held, has been enunciated by the FNJPC which has noted that an upward revision of the pay scales of high court judges and judicial officers must be in the same ratio.

The FNJPC stated in its report that in case the salary of the high court Judges is revised upward at any time, the pay scales of the judicial officers in all the cadres, should also be suitably revised upward by maintaining the respective ratios. This principle, the bench reminded the review petitioners, was endorsed by the Supreme Court, without any modification in All India Judges Association v Union of India (2002).

The bench held that there is no 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).

Other issues

First, the bench held that the initial starting pay must be such as to offer an incentive to talented youngsters to join judicial service.

Second, the bench reasoned that the application of a multiplier/factor less than 2.81 would result in a deviation from the principle adopted by SNJPC that the extent of the increase of pay of judicial officers must be commensurate with the increase in the pay of the high court judges.  This principle, the bench reminded the review petitioners, has been accepted by the court by approving the recommendations of the SNJPC.

Third, in All India Judges Association (II) v Union of India (1993), the apex court had already rejected the comparison of service conditions of the judiciary with that of the administrative executive.

Fourth, the bench rejected the Union government’s argument that a uniform IoR would equate the district courts with constitutional courts. A uniform multiplier is used for a uniform increment (emphasis by the bench) in pay and not for the purpose of uniform pay in itself, the bench clarified. 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, the bench held.

The bench reasoned that the standards of ethics and professionalism expected of judges are more rigorous than those applied to other services/professions. Ensuring adequate emoluments, pension, and proper working conditions for the members of the district judiciary has an important bearing on the efficiency of judicial administration and the effective discharge of the unique role assigned to the judiciary, the bench added.

The bench recalled that Union government officers have had the benefit of VIIth CPC scales since 2016. Judicial officers, it said, are still awaiting a revision despite the lapse of over seven years. Lost time impinges on the nature of their working conditions, and ultimately on the quality of life itself, it emphasised.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.