Mr.Justice Shetty's Report

First National Judicial Pay Commission was constituted and one of the terms of the reference was "to evolve the principles which should govern structure of pay and other-emoluments of Judicial Officers belonging to the subordinate judiciary all over the country".

Constitution of Commission :

The Commission consist of :-

1. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, Chairman.
2. Justice P. K. Bahri, Retired-Judge, Delhi High Court, Member.
3. Justice A. B. Murgod, (Rtd.) Judge, Karnataka High Court, Member-Secretary.

Supreme Court Judgments all India judges Association :

The Supreme Court in its land-mark judgment in All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India and others reported in A.I.R. 1993 SC, 2493 his observed :-

"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 States. They are holders of public offices in the same way as the members of the council of ministers and members of the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such as ours, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitute 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 of 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 of assist in implementing their decisions. The Council of Ministers or the political executives 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 Commission in its Volume-III at page 1011, page 14.31 quoted the Supreme Court Judgment as follows :- and para 14.32, 14.33 at page No.1012 are also quoted the Supreme Court Judgment as under :-

14.31.. In the Review Judgment in All India Judges' Association Case (AIR 1993 SC 2493) the Supreme Court observed at p.2501:

"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 members of the legislature."

"The judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State the and its authority unlike the administrative executive or the members of the other services. The members of the other services, therefore, can not be placed on par with the members of the judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally".

"The distinction between the Judges and the members of the other services has to be constantly kept in mind for yet another important reason. Judicial independence cannot be secured by making mere solemn proclamations about it. It has to be secured both in substance and in practice. It is tried to say that those who are in want can not be free. Self -reliance is the foundation of independence. The Society has a stake in ensuring the independence of the judiciary, and no price is too heavy to secure it. To keep the judge in want of the essential accouterments and thus to impede them in the proper discharge of their duties is to impair and whittle away justice itself".

"As pointed out earlier, the parity in status in longer between the judiciary and the administrative executive but between the judiciary and the political executive. Under the Constitution, the judiciary is above the administrative executive and any attempt to place it on the par with the administrative executive has to be discouraged. The failure to grasp this simple truth is responsible for the contention that the service conditions of the former must necessarily lead to the comparable improvement in the service condition of the latter."

14.32.. The Supreme Court has also observed in the said review judgment while fixing the pay scales of the judicial officers, the consideration of the capacity of the Government to pay would be irrelevant.

14.33.. So, this much is clear that there cannot be a linkage between the pay-scales of judicial officers with the pay scales of the executives. However, since we have a graded system of judicial service, the salary level of the High Court Judges is an important factor to be reckoned to maintain the relativities across the State judiciary. It is a vital factor to be borne in mind while judging the appropriateness of any particular level of salary to the Judges of the Subordinate Courts.

The writer has quoted the above paragraphs in order to show that the Commission has relied on All India Judges Association case and proceeded to fix the pay-scales of the Judicial officers subordinate to the High Court.

The Commission had come to the conclusion that burden of the recommendations would be Rs.95.71 crore per year :-

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF NEW SCALES
OF PAY TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS, Per-annum.

Government Estimate Liability of Rs.14,000 Crore :-

The Commission has estimated Financial Implications of New Pay Scales of Pay to Judicial Officers for an amount per-annum at Rs.95.71 crores. It is reported in News-papers that the State Governments and the Central Government have estimated additional financial burden at Rs.14,000 crores and States have protested that they do not have funds. It is reported that the Supreme Court has enquired how the additional burden of Rs.14,000 crores works out.

The wide difference in above two figures can be explained due to observation of the Commission in para 15.101, on page 1064 Volume-III, which is reproduced as under :-

15.101… "Broadly, the totality of the additional financial burden upon the revised scales being given effect to would be of the order of Rs.95.71 crores for a year for all States/UTs. This includes the payment of IR given to the Judicial Officers and also the benefits of 5th CPC Scales. Details of financial implication, state-wise, are given in the appendix. The summary of the same is produced as above."

Allowances Liability :-

It seems liability of Rs.95.71 crores p.a. is only with regard to revised pay scales as per above para of Commission. The liabilities of proportionate D.A. now 59% of Pay and liability other allowances are not included. The following are other allowances :-

(i) Dearness Allowance
(ii) 50% of Electricity Bill + water charge
(iii) Rs.2500 Payment of Home orderly allowance
(iv) Robe & Coat allowance of Rs.5,000 after five years.
(v) Conveyance-car petrol 75 liters to 50 liters.
(vi) Sumptuary - allowance of entertaining visitors at the rate of Rs.1000 or Rs.750 and Rs.500 per month (Hill allowance)
(vii) Two news papers + One magazine
(viii) City compensatory allowance
(ix) Medical Facilities
(x) Leave Travel Concession
(xi) Special Pay
(xii) Concurrent charge allowances
(xiii) Encashment of Leave and Leave Salary
(xiv) Housing
(xv) Advances.

Volume III Appendix - I, page 43, para 145 has laid down the effective date of recommendations :-

Effective Date of Recommendations :-

The new Scale of Pay recommended by the Commission shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1-1-1996. However, monetary benefit shall be payable w.e.f. 1-7-1996.

Other allowances which the Commission has recommended shall be given effect to from 1-11-1999.

It seems that the commission has worked out only liability of new pay scales to Rs.95.71 crores. P.a. The commission has recommended to give arrears of new pay scales from 1-7-1996 and all allowances from 1-11-1999. As stated above, as per statement of commission, the liability of additional D.A. of 7 years and liability of all allowances from 1-11-1999 is not worked out. The wide difference in figures is due to stand taken by the commission that the Government is bound to give carry out our recommendations irrespective of paying capacity or financial conditions of the Centre or respective States.