Sei sulla pagina 1di 93

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The Petitioner is seeking review and improvement of the


service conditions of the judicial officers throughout the
country by way of the present petition under Article 32.
The Petitioner in the instant case is All India Judges
Association (AIJA) whose members are judges of the
subordinate judiciary from all over India and was formed
and registered in 1985. The petitioner was formed with the
primary objective of improving the service conditions of
the

judges

in

sub-ordinate

judiciary. Ever

since

its

inception, the AIJA has striven towards achieving its


objective and has approached this Honble Court on
several occasions in the past by filing writ petitions raising
issues of common good and for the benefit of the
subordinate judiciary as a whole. In past, this Honble
Court had directed for constitution of the Honble Justice
Shetty Commission and Honble Justice Padmanabhan
Commission

for

recommending

improvements

in

the

service conditions of judicial officers. These commissions


have favourably shaped the service conditions of all the
judges in sub-ordinate judiciary in compliance with the
directions by this Honble Court. Thus, the efforts of AIJA
are aimed towards the welfare of its members and not of
any particular individual. In this context, it is submitted

that the instant petition is being filed so that the judicial


officers are granted their essential and basic service
conditions.

Article 50 of the Constitution of India incorporates the


concept of separation of judiciary from the executive in the
public services of the State and the distinction between
the two has to be maintained.

Importantly, though the periodic exercise of constituting a


Pay Commission for the executive in public service has
been undertaken by the Central/State Government and
pay scales are being reviewed, no such mechanism has
been put in place for the judicial services despite specific
directions by this Honble Court to this effect. This Honble
Court in All India Judges Association Vs. Union of
India 1992 (1) SCC 119 was pleased to direct that as
and when such Commissions or committees are set up in
the states and Union Territories hereafter, they separately
examine and review pay structure of judicial officers
keeping in view all relevant aspects. (p.199 SCC).

However, these directions by this Honble Court were


sought to be reviewed by the Union of India and the
States. This Honble Court accordingly in All India
Judges Association Vs. Union of India 1993 (4) SCC
288 while disposing off the review petitions, was pleased
to hold that merely because Article 309 of the Constitution
of India gives power to the executive and the legislature to
prescribe the service conditions of the judiciary, and that
after the council of States make the necessary declaration
under Article 312 of the Constitution of India, the
Parliament is empowered to create All India Judicial
Service, it does not mean that the judiciary should have
no say in the matter. It would be against the spirit of the
Constitution to deny any role to the judiciary in that behalf
for theoretically it would not be impossible for the
executive or the legislature to turn and twist the tail of the
judiciary by using the said power. Such a consequence
would be against one of the seminal mandates of the
Constitution namely to maintain the independence of
judiciary and no price is too heavy to secure it. This
Honble Court had then held that it was for this reason
that the practice of entrusting the work of recommending
the service conditions of members of subordinate judiciary

to the same Pay Commission which recommended the


service conditions of the administrative services, required
reconsideration. This Honble Court has ruled in All India
Judges Association v Union of India and ors 1993 4
SCC 288 that the service conditions of the Judicial Officers
should be laid down and reviewed from time to time by an
independent Commission exclusively constituted for the
purpose, and the composition of such Commission should
reflect adequate representation on behalf of the judiciary.
The question with regard to pay scales in respect of the
members of the judicial service had however been initially
referred to the 5th Central Pay Commission. However, in
view of the directions as above, the Govt. of India by a
resolution dated 21/03/1996, constituted the First National
Judicial Pay Commission under the Chairmanship of
Honble Mr. Justice K.J. Shetty, a former Judge of this
Honble Court. Subsequently, by an amendment made on
24/10/1996,

the

reference

to

the

5th

Central

Pay

Commission with regard to the fixation of Pay Scales of


the Judicial Officers was deleted.

The 5th Central Pay Commission submitted its report on


30/01/1997, which was accepted by the government on

30/09/1997 and was made applicable w.e.f. 01/01/1996.


The

First

National

Judicial

Pay

Commission

(Shetty

Commission for short) submitted its report on 11/11/1999


wherein

after

taking

into

consideration

the

recommendations which have been made by the 5th


Central Pay Commission and the pivotal role of the
subordinate judiciary a master pay scale was evolved. The
Shetty Commission came to the conclusion that the
number on the Pay Scale should be equal to the number of
clearly identifiable levels of responsibility also taking into
consideration the scope for promotional avenues. It is a
matter of record that even the recommendations made by
the Shetty Commission have been resisted on one pretext
or the other including the alleged plea of financial burden.
Finally,

this

Honble

Court

in

its

judgment

dated

21/03/2002 vide All India Judges Association Vs.


Union of India 2002 (4) SCC 247 was pleased to accept
the recommendations of the Shetty Commission subject to
certain modifications by this Honble Court. This Honble
Court also directed that the Pay Scale so approved shall be
w.e.f. 01/07/1996.

Though this Honble Court in its review judgment (as


above) had directed that the service conditions of the
Judicial Officers should be laid down and reviewed from
time to time by an independent Commission exclusively
constituted

for

the

purpose,

inspite

of

the

Central

Government constituting the subsequent Pay Commission


namely the 6th Central Pay Commission, no such separate
independent Commission was constituted to review the
service conditions of the subordinate judiciary as directed
by this Honble Court. The Shetty Commission in its report
while arriving at the Pay Scales recommended for the
subordinate judicial service, had noted that while fixing
the maximum of the master pay scale, it had been
constrained by the vertical cap of the salaries of the High
Court Judges. In other words, the district judges could not
get more salary than the High Court Judges, whose
salaries

were

statutorily

fixed.

It

was

however,

recommended that as and when the salaries of High Court


Judges are raised, the salary of the Judicial Officers should
also be increased by maintaining the ratio which the
Shetty Commission had recommended. The salary of the
High Court Judges was revised by the High Court and
Supreme Court Judges (salaries and conditions of service)

Amendment Ordinance, 2009, published in the Gazette of


India vide notification dated 09/01/2009. Subsequently,
this became an Act of the Parliament. Since the Pay Scales
admissible to the subordinate judiciary saw no revision
this Honble Court recognizing that the pay scales required
urgent

upward

revision

and

vide

its

order

dated

28/04/2009 in All India Judges Association Vs. Union


of India 2011 (12) SCC 678, was pleased to appoint
Honble Mr. Justice E. Padmanabhan, Retd. Judge of the
Madras High Court to make suitable recommendations
having regard to the recommendations already made by
the Shetty Commission in respect of the pay scales and
allowances and certain other perquisites of the judicial
officers.

Justice E. Padmanabhan

submitted

his report dated

17/07/2009 and made several determinations on the basis


of the First National Judicial Pay Commission Report
consequent to revision pay scale of the High Court Judges.
The

Commission

however,

recommended

that

its

recommendations be implemented w.e.f. 01/01/2006 i.e.


the date from which the recommendations made by the
6th Central Pay Commission were implemented by the

Central Government. However, the Commission in para


VIII of its Report noted that several demands made by the
Judicial Officers and Pensioners fell outside the scope of
reference made to the Commission. All these demands, as
the report of the Commission would depict, pertained to
the various service conditions of the Judicial Officers but
were not considered by the Commission since these were
found to be beyond the scope of limited reference made to
the Commission. The terms of reference of the said
Padmanabhan Commission were severely restricted on
account of it being limited to determine the pay scale of
judicial officers on the basis of recommendations of the
Shetty Commission. The Honble Commission in para 74 of
its report thus recorded the following:

Since most of the demands so made are


outside the scope of reference made to this
Commission

by

the

Honble

Court,

this

Commission has enumerated those demands,


which
Honble

require
Court

consideration
or

by

either

separate

by

this

Judicial

Pay

Commission or at the appropriate level and they


are given hereunder:

The Commission in Part VIII of its report, has made


reference to at least 56 essential conditions of service
which could not be reviewed by it since they were outside
the scope of reference to the Commission. In Part IX the
Commission recorded the following demands which do not
even cost the exchequer:

i)

Five Days a week.

ii)

Provision for Transit/Guest House facility.

iii)

Issuance of Car stickers for personal cars of


Judicial officers as also for providing red light
atop the vehicles of the particular level of Judicial
Officers.

iv)

Issue of SeniorityRota-Quota.

v)

Separate Forum (State Level and National Level)


for settlement of various administrative and
service grievances/problems.

vi)

Welfare activities for the fraternity in general.

vii)

Advance of salary for meeting contingencies 15

days salary prayed.


viii) Protocol to Distt. Judiciary to be maintained as
per their status as executives.
ix)

Priority

in

reservations/bookings:

alongwith

transportation, quest houses, rest houses etc.


x)

Identity

Cards

to

Pensioners

and

Family

Pensioners to avail medical facilities etc.


xi)

II ACP alongwith fixation of seniority to be


finalized promptly.

xii)

Change of nomenclature of Civil Judge (Junior


Division) to Civil Judge.

Thus, several essential conditions of service of the judicial


officers are left to be addressed till date. It is in view of
these, the Honble Commission too, in Para 75 of its report
has stressed upon the need to have a pay commission for
judicial

officers

to

be

periodically

constituted

simultaneously with the Pay Commission constituted for


the employees of the Central Government. To quote from
the

words

of

the

Commission:

appointment of a Judicial Pay Commission


should normally be made when Central Pay
Commission is constituted and notified.

In exercise of its executive power under Article 73 of the


Constitution of India, the Central Government constitutes
Pay Commissions generally after a gap of every 10 years
for periodic revision of pay scales admissible to Central
Government employees. However, no such mechanism has
been devised for periodic revision of pay and allowances
admissible to the members of the subordinate judiciary
inspite of specific directions by this Honble Court and the
recommendations for such periodic Pay Commission made
by the First National Judicial Pay Commission and the
Padmanabhan Commission as well. It may be noted that
the Central Government has now notified constitution of
the 7th Pay Commission for the Central Government
Employees, but no such exercise has been undertaken to
revise the conditions of service of the members of
subordinate judiciary. Thus, there has been consistent and
patent neglect towards the service conditions of Judicial
Officers despite the repeated directions by this Honble
Court and its anguish there against.

The Petitioner has made several representations to the


respondents

requesting

them

to

review

the

service

conditionsof the judicial officers. The Petitioner made a


representation

to

the

Cabinet

Secretary

of

the

Government of India on 13/5/2015 but representation was


rejected by Government of India on 23/6/2015 on the
ground that the service conditions of the judicial officers of
State Public Judicial are not within the competence of
Central Government and the Honble Supreme Court has
been seized of the matter.

Hence this writ petition is being filed.

The

relevant

events

preceding

the

present

petition,

chronologically, are as under:

13/11/1991

This Honble Court delivered its judgmentin


All India Judges Association v. Union
Of India, 1992 (1) SCC 119(first AIJA
Case for short) issuing

directions for

improvement of the service conditions of

the members of subordinate judiciary. The


directions were as follows:
1. An

All

India

Judicial

Service

should be set up and the Union of


India

should

take

appropriate

steps in this regard.


2. Steps should be taken to bring
about uniformity in designations
of

officers

both

in

civil

and

criminal side by 31/03/1993


3. Retirement age of judicial officers
be

raised

to

60

years

and

appropriate steps are to be taken


by 31/12/1992.
4. As

and

when

the

commission/committees
up

in

the

territories,

States
the

pay

are

and

set

Union

question

of

appropriate pay scales of judicial


officers

be

specifically

referred

and considered.
5. A working library at the residence
of every judicial officer has to be

provided

by

30/06/1992.

Provision for sumptuary allowance


as stated has to be made.
6. Residential

accommodation

to

every judicial officer has to be


provided

and

until

accommodation
government

is

State

available,

should

provide

requisitioned accommodation for


them in the manner indicated by
31/12/1992.

In

residential

accommodation,

availability

of

an

providing

office

room

should be kept in view.


7. Every District Judge and Chief
Judicial Magistrate should have a
State vehicle, judicial officers in
sets of five should have a pool
vehicle

and

others

would

be

entitled

to

suitable

loans

to

acquire two wheeler automobiles


within

different

specified.

time

limits

as

8. In-service institute should be set


up within one year at the Central
and

State

or

Union

territory

level.

24/08/1993

This Honble Court in All India Judges


Association and Ors. Etc. v. Union of
India and Ors etc., - 1993 (4) SCC288
rejected the objections raised by the Union
of India and States while reviewing the
above mentioned judgment in the first AIJA
case and held that:
(i)

Each of the general and special


objections of Union of India and
States/ Union territories was dealt
with and rejected. The distinction
between judicial and other services
specifically emphasized.

(ii)

The service conditions of judicial


officers should be laid down and
reviewed from time to time by an
independent
exclusively

commission
constituted

for

the

purpose, and the composition of


such

commission

should

reflect

adequate representation on behalf


of the judiciary.
(iii) By giving the directions in question,
this Court has only called upon the
Executive and the Legislature to
implement their imperative duties.
The Courts do issue directions to
the authorities to perform their
obligatory duties whenever there is
a failure on their part to discharge
them....

The

further

directions

given, therefore, should not be


looked upon as an encroachment
on the powers of the Executive and
the Legislature to determine the
service conditions of the judiciary.
They are directions to perform the
long overdue obligatory duties
...The directions are essential for the
evolvement of an appropriate national
policy by the Government in regard to

the

judiciary's

conditions".

The

directions issued are mere aids and


incidental to and supplemental of the
main direction and intended as a
transitional

measure

comprehensive

national

till

policy

is

evolved, (Para 6).


(iv) The question of financial burden likely
to be imposed is misconceived and
should not be raised to discharge
mandatory duties:

The contention with regard to the


financial burden likely to be imposed
by the directions in question is equally
misconceived. Firstly, the Courts do
from

time

decisions

to

time

which

hand

have

down

financial

implications and the Government is


obligated
recurrently

to

loosen

its

purse

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

duties.

The

of

the

contention

mandatory
that

the

resources of all the States are not


uniform has also to be rejected for
the similar 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.

(v)

The directions
judgment

given

dated

in

the main

13/11/1991

were

maintained except as regards the


following:
a.

The legal practice for of 3 years


should

be

made

essential

one

of

qualifications

the
for

recruitment to the judicial posts


at the lowest rung in the judicial
hierarchy.Further, wherever the
recruitment

of

the

judicial

officers at the lowest rung is


made through the public service
commission, a representative of
the

High

Court

associated

with

should
the

be

selection

process and his advice should


prevail unless there are strong
and

cogent

accepting
should

it,
be

reasons
which

for

not

reasons

recorded

in

writing.The rules for recruitment


of the judicial officers should be

amended

forthwith

to

incorporate the above directions.


b.

The direction with regard to the


enhancement

of

the

superannuation age is modified


as

follows:While

superannuation

age

the
of

every

sub-ordinate judicial officer shall


stand extended upto 60 years,
the

respective

High

Courts

should, as stated above, assess


and evaluate the record of the
judicial officer for his continued
utility well within time before he
attains the age of 58 years by
following the procedure for the
compulsory retirement under the
service rules applicable to him
and give him the benefit of the
extended

superannuation

age

from 58 to 60 years only if he is


found fit and eligible to continue
in service. In case he is not

found fit and eligible, he should


be compulsorily retired on his
attaining the age of 58 years.The
assessment in question should
be done before the attainment of
the age of 58 years even in
cases

where

superannuation

the
age

earlier
was

less

than 58 years.
c.

The

direction

sumptuary

for

granting

allowance

to

the

District Judges and Chief Judicial


Magistrates stands withdrawn for
the reasons given earlier.
d.

The direction with regard to the


grant

of

residence-cum-library

allowance will cease to operate


when

the

respective

Government/Union
administration

start

State
territory

providing

the Courts, as directed above,


with the necessary law books

and journals in consultation with


the respective High Courts.
e.

The direction with regard to the


conveyance to be provided to the
District Judges and that with
regard to the establishment of
the training institutes for the
Judges have been clarified by us
in paragraphs 45(vii) & 49(viii)
respectively. It is the principal
district Judge at each district
headquarter or the metropolitan
town as the case may be, who
will be entitled to an independent
vehicle. This will equally apply to
the Chief Judicial Magistrate and
the

Chief

Magistrate.

The

Metropolitan
rest

of

the

Judges and Magistrates will be


entitled to pool-vehicles-one for
every five Judges for transport
from residence to Court and back
and when needed, loans for two

wheeler

automobiles

and

conveyance allowance. The State


Governments/Union

territory

administrations are directed to


provide

adequate

quantity

of

free petrol for the vehicles, not


exceeding 100 liters per month,
in consultation with the High
Court.
f.

In view of the establishment of


the national judicial academy, it
is optional for the States to have
their

independent

or

joint

training judicial institutes.


g.

In view of the time taken to


dispose of the review petitions,
following orders were passed:the
time to comply with the direction
for bringing about uniformity in
hierarchy,

designations

and

jurisdictions of judicial officers on


both civil and criminal sides is
extended upto 31/03/1994;the

time

to

comply

with

the

directions to provide law books


and law journals to all Courts is
extended
failing

upto
which,

allowance

should

31/12/1993
the
be

library
paid

to

every judicial officer with effect


from 01/01/1994, if it is not paid
already;the
suitable

time

to

provide

residential

accommodation, requisitioned of
Government, to every judicial
officer

is

extended

upto

31/03/1994;the time to comply


with the rest of the directions is
maintained as it was directed by
the judgment under review;
h.

Regarding uniform pay scales,


the review judgment emphasized
the following:We have already
discussed the need to make a
distinction between the political
and the administrative executive

and to appreciate that parity in


status

can

Judges

only

and

executive

be

between

the

political

not

between

and

Judges and the administrative


executive.

Hence,

the

earlier

approach of comparison between


the

service

Judges

conditions

and

those

of
of

the
the

administrative executive has to


be abandoned and the service
conditions of the Judges which
are wrongly linked to those of
the

administrative

executive

have to be revised to meet the


special

needs

of

the

judicial

service. Further, since the work


of the judicial officers throughout
the country is of the similar
nature, the service conditions
have to be uniform. We have
also

emphasized

earlier

the

necessity of entrusting the work

of

prescribing

the

service

conditions for the judicial officers


to a separate pay commission
exclusively

set

up

for

the

purpose. Hence, we reiterate the


importance

of

commission

and

desirability

such

separate

also

of

of

the

prescribing

uniform pay scales to the Judges


all over the country. Since such
pay scales will be the minimum
deserved by the judicial officers,
the argument that some of the
States may not be able to bear
the financial burden is irrelevant.
The uniform service conditions
as and when laid down would
not, of course, affect any special
or extra benefits which some
States may be bestowing upon
their judicial officers.
24/10/1996

First National Judicial Pay Commission was


constituted by the Government of India

pursuant to the directions issued by this


Court

in

Second

AIJA

Case.

The

Commission was headed by Honble Mr.


Justice K.J. Shetty. The terms of reference
were as follows:
A. To evolve the principles that would
govern the structure of pay and other
emoluments

of

judicial

officers

belonging to the subordinate judiciary


all over the country.

B. To examine the present structure of


emoluments and conditions of service
of judicial officers in the states/UTs
taking into account the total packet of
benefits available to them and make
suitable

recommendations

having

regard, among other relevant factors,


to the existing relativities in the pay
structure

between

belonging

to

the

subordinate

officers
judicial

service visa-vis other civil servants.

C. To examine and recommend in respect


of

minimum

qualifications,

age

of

recruitment, method of recruitment,


etc.,

for

judicial

officers.

In

this

context, the relevant provisions of the


constitution

and

directions

of

the

Supreme Court in All India Judges


Association case and other cases may
be kept in view.

D. To examine the work methods and


work environment as also the variety
of allowances and benefits in kind that
are available to judicial officers in
addition

to

rationalization

pay

and

and

to

suggest

simplification

thereof with a view to promoting


efficiency in judicial administration,
optimizing the size of the judiciary
etc."

11/11/1999

Honble

Mr. Justice

Shetty

Commission

submitted its report with the following


recommendations:

1. The High Courts were required to


frame the rules specifying particular
age of retirement and it was also
recommended that the procedure
prescribed

for

writing

the

confidential reports by the selfassessment process was better and


more transparent and should be
adopted by the High Courts for
judicial officers.

2. The

commission

recommended

appropriate nomenclatures to be
given to the judicial officers. The
recommendation

was

that

they

should be called "civil judge" in


place

of

"civil

judge

(junior

division)" and "senior civil judge" in

place

of

"civil

judge

(senior

division)".

3. It

further

gave

recommendation

with regard to equation of posts of


the chief metropolitan magistrate
and chief judicial magistrate. While
it

recommended

that

the

chief

judicial magistrate should be in the


cadre

of

division),

civil
in

judge

respect

metropolitan

(senior
of

chief

magistrate,

it

recommended that it should be


placed in the cadre of district judge.
According to the learned amicus
curiae,

the

magistrate

chief
and

metropolitan
chief

judicial

magistrate must be in the same


cadre

equivalent

to

civil

judge

(senior division) and that it should


be at par with each other.

4. Recommendations were made with


regard to recruitment to the cadre
of civil judge (junior division)-cummagistrate first class as well as
recruitment to the post of civil
judge

(senior

division).

The

recommendation in this regard was


that the posts of civil judge (senior
division) should only be filled by
promotion.

5. The

commission

recommendation

also

with

made

regard

to

appointment to the post of district


judge which includes the additional
district judge in the higher judicial
service.

It

pointed

out

some

problems which had arisen as a


result of direct recruitment to the
post of district judges, the problem
really being with regard to the inter
se seniority amongst them.

6. The commission also recommended


that

serving

judges

who

were

between 35 and 45 of age should


be

made

eligible

for

direct

recruitment to the higher judicial


service which consists of the posts
of district judges and additional
district judges and for this purpose,
if necessary, there should be an
amendment to Article 233(2) of the
Constitution of India.

7. With regard to inter se seniority


between
promotees,

direct
the

recruits

and

commission

recommended that the promotees


be given weightage of one year for
every five years of judicial service
rendered by them subject to a
maximum of three years.

8.

The
steps

report

also

recommended

being

taken

for

judicial

education and training.

14/12/1999

This Honble Court passed an order in the


first

AIJA

case

directing

the

State

Governments and the Union Territories to


send their responses to the Union of India
so that it could co-relate the responses and
indicate

its

own

stand

on

the

recommendations of Honble Mr. Justice


Shetty Commission.

08/02/2002

This Honble Court passed a Judgment and


order in All India Judges Association
and Ors. v. Union of India, 2002 (4)
SCC

247(third

AIJA

case)

issuing

directions in the Writ Petition filed on behalf


of the Petitioner for review of the working
conditions of the members of the Sub
ordinate Judiciary throughout the country.
While passing the above mentioned order
this Honble Court rejected the contention

raised by the Respondents therein about


the Financial Burden
Government

to

and directed the

implement

recommendations

of

with

Justice

the

Shetty

Commission in the case of. The relevant


extract of the above mentioned judgment
is as follows:

1. Honble

Mr.

Commission

Justice
has

Shetty

taken

into

consideration the recommendations


of fifth central pay commission and
the pay scales recommended by it
are

just

and

reasonable.

Considering the years of service put


in

by

the

judicial

officers

at

different stages, the parity in the


scales of pay recommended by the
commission for the judicial officers
with the scales of pay of the I.A.S.
Officers

is

not

by

disturbed. (Para 19)

and

large

2. However the entire expenditure on


account of the recommendation of
the Justice Shetty Commission be
borne

by

the

respective

states.

(Para 22)
3. Existing

vacancies

in

the

sub-

ordinate courts at all levels should


be filed. There has to be certain
minimum

standards,

objectively

adjudged for officers who are to


enter the higher judicial service as
additional
district

district

judges.

appointment

judges

Ratio

by

of

promotion

and
75%
and

25% by direct recruitment to the


higher

judicial

service

maintained.

As

far

as

appointment

by

promotion

is
the
is

concerned 50% must be filled by


promotion on the basis of principle
of merit-cum-seniority and passing
a suitable test and 25% by strictly
on

the

basis

of

merit

through

limited competitive examination of


civil judges(senior division) having
not less than 5 years of qualifying
service.(Para 26)
4. Recommendations for increase in
retirement age from 60 to 62 years
not acceptable. (Para 25)
5. Judicial

officers

provided

with

official accommodation will not be


entitled to house rent allowances.
50% of the electricity and water
charges of the residence of judicial
officers to be borne by the State
Government.
graduates

Even

without

fresh
any

law

practice

should be eligible to enter judicial


service provided training of one or
two

years.

Chief

judicial

magistrates and chief metropolitan


magistrates equated and placed in
the cadre of senior division subjudge. Revised pay scales to be
paid w.e.f. 01.07.1996. (Para 34)

This Honble Court further noted in this


decision that
The Govt. of India has erred in
equating the district judge at the
entry with the scales of pay of a
Selection Grade IAS Officer. The
proper equation should have been
between the District Judge at entry
Level with a super time scale of an
IAS Officer; it is on that basis that
the

scale

determined

of

pay

should

upwards

be
and

downwards.

It was also observed by the Court that


It is only the District Judge (Super
Time Scale) as recommended by
the

Justice

Shetty

commission

which is comparable with the last


scale of an IAS Officer.

28/04/2009

Honble

Mr.

Justice

E.

Padmanabhan

Commission was appointed by the Order of


this Honble Court in the third AIJA case to
determine the pay scales of all the Judicial
Officers etc. throughout the country on the
basis

of

Justice

Shetty

Commissions

Report. This Commission was directed to


determine

scales

of

pay,

allowances,

perquisites etc. of Judicial Officers in the


cadre of (i) Civil Judges (Junior Division),
(ii) Civil Judges (Senior Division), (iii)
District Judges (Entry Grade), (iv) District
Judges (Selection Grade) and (v) District
Judges (Super Time Scale) having regard
to the recommendations already made by
the Honble Justice Shetty Commission in
respect of the pay scales, allowances and
other perquisites of the Judicial Officers,
and so also revised Pensionary benefits
payable to Judicial Pensioners.

17/07/2009

Justice
submitted

Padmanabhan
its

report.

Committee

However, various

demands made by the Judicial Officers


Association were not considered by the
Committee as they were beyond its scope.
The Committee vide paragraph 73 and 74
enumerated the areas to be reviewed by
Separate Judicial Pay Commission.

The Petitioners most respectfully submit


that since then there has been no review of
the service conditions of the subordinate
judiciary even when there has been a
periodic review in respect of administrative
services. Thus, even after three rounds of
litigations and two commissions spanning
across two decades that have brought
certain widespread changes in the working
conditions of the subordinate judiciary in
India,

there

between
conditions

the
of

still

remains

treatment
the

disparity

of

working

subordinate

judicial

services and other administrative services,


in terms of monetary benefit as well as
social

security. It

is

most

respectfully

submitted that the pivotal reason for this


uncertainty is lack of a permanent body
that can regulate the service conditions of
the subordinate judiciary.

28/02/2014

7th Pay Commission was constituted. The


terms of reference of the said Commission
are as follows:

To

examine,

evolve

and

changes

that

are

recommend

review,

desirable and feasible regarding the


principles

that

should

govern

the

emoluments structure including pay


allowances

and

other

facilities/benefits, in cash or kind,


having regard to rationalization and
simplification therein as well as the
specialized

needs

of

various

Departments, agencies and services,


in respect of the following categories
of employees: -

i. Central Government employees


industrial and non-industrial;
ii. Personnel belonging to the All
India Services:
iii. Personnel

of

the

Union

Territories;
iv. Officers and employees of the
Indian

Audit

and

Accounts

Department;
v. Members of the regulatory bodies
(excluding the RBI) set up under
the acts of Parliament; and
vi. Officers and employees of the
Supreme Court

It is thus evident that the scope of 7 th Pay


Commission does not extend to the SubOrdinate Judiciary. Thus while it would
bring about better pay scales to the
Indian Administrative Officers there would
be

no

improvement

conditions

of

the

in

the

members

service
of

the

subordinate judiciary. This is violative of


the principles of equality and fundamental
rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16
07/07/2014

20th Law Commission submitted the 245th


report

on

arrears

and

backlogs

recommending increase in the retirement


age of the judges of subordinate judiciary
from 60 to 62.
13/05/2015

Petitioner submitted a representation to


the Cabinet Secretary of the Government
of India to constitute an All India Judicial
Commission
conditions

to
of

the

review
judicial

the

service

officers

of

District Judiciary in India..


23/06/2015

The abovementioned representation was


rejected by Government of India on the
ground that service conditions of the
judicial officers of State Public Judicial is
not within the competence of Central
Government and the Honble Supreme
Court has been seized of the matter.

In these circumstances the Petitioners are


constrained to file this present petition

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF
1. All India Judges Association
Through its Working President
Having address at:
37 Upkar Society, Harinagar,
Gotri Road,
Vadodara 390007
Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Notice through,
Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice,
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
Respondent No.1
2. The Registrar General,
High Court of Allahabad,
Allahabad, U.P. 211001

Respondent No.2

3. The Registrar General,


High Court of Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.

Respondent No.3

4. The Registrar General,


High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad 500266
Respondent No.4
5. The Registrar General,
High Court of Bombay,
Mumbai 400032

Respondent No.5

6. The Registrar,
High Court of Bombay,
Goa (Panaji) Bench,
Goa 403 001

Respondent No.6

7. The Registrar General,


High Court of Calcutta,
Kolkata 700001

Respondent No.7

8. The Registrar General,


High Court of Calcutta,
Circuit Bench at Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Port Blair 744101
Respondent No.8
9. The Registrar General,
High Court of Chattisgarh,
Bilaspur 795001

Respondent No.9

10. The Registrar General,


High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi 110003

Respondent No.10

11. The Registrar General,


High Court of Guwahati,
Guwahati 781001

Respondent No.11

12. The Registrar,


High Court of Guwahati
Imphal Bench, Imphal.

Respondent No.12

13. The Registrar General,


High Court of Guwahati
Kohima Bench, Kohima.

Respondent No.13

14. The Registrar General,


High Court of Guwahati
Agartala Bench, Agartala.

Respondent No.14

15. The Registrar General,


High Court of Guwahati,
Aizwal Bench, Aizwal.

Respondent No.15

16. The Registrar General,


High Court of Guwahati,
Shillong Bench, Shillong.

Respondent No.16

17. The Registrar General,


High Court of Guwahati
Itanagar bench, Itanagar.

Respondent No.17

18. The Registrar General,


High Court of Gujarat,
Ahmedbad.

Respondent No.18

19. The Registrar General,

High Court of Himachal Pradesh,


Shimla 171001
Respondent No.19
20. The Registrar General,
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir,
Srinagar 190001
Respondent No.20
21. The Registrar General,
High Court of Jharkhand,
Ranchi 834033

Respondent No.21

22. The Registrar General,


High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore 560001

Respondent No.22

23. The Registrar General,


High Court of Kerala,
Ernakulam (Kochi) 682031

Respondent No.23

24. The Registrar General,


High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600104

Respondent No.24

25. The Registrar General,


High Court of Madras
Madurai Bench, Madurai.

Respondent No.25

26. The Registrar General,


High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Jabalpur 482001
Respondent No.26
27. The Registrar General,
High Court of Orissa,
Cuttak 753002

Respondent No.27

28. The Registrar General,


High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Chandigarh 160001
Respondent No.28
29. The Registrar General,
High Court of Rajasthan,
Jodhpur 342001

Respondent No.29

30. The Registrar General,


High Court of Sikkim,
Gangtok.

Respondent No.30

31. The Registrar General,


High Court of Uttarakhand,
Nainital.

Respondent No.31

32. State of Andhra Pradesh


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Hyderabad 500022Respondent No.32
33. State of Arunanchal Pradesh
Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Itanagar 791111. Respondent No.33
34. State of Assam
Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Dispur,
Guwahati 781006

Respondent No.34

35. State of Bihar


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Patna.

Respondent No.35

36. State of Chattisgarh


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat,
Raipur 492001

Respondent No.36

37. State of Goa


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Porvorim Goa

Respondent No.37

38. State of Gujarat,


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Sachivalaya,
Gandhinagar 382010

Respondent No.38

39. State of Haryana


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Haryana Civil Secretariat,

Sector 01, Chandigarh-160001 Respondent No.39


40. State of Himachal Pradesh
Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Shimla 171002

Respondent No.40

41. State of Andhra Pradesh


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Srinagar
Jammu and Kashmir

Respondent No.41

42. State of Andhra Pradesh


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Dhurwa,
Ranchi 834001

Respondent No.42

43. State of Karnataka


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Bangalore 560001

Respondent No.43

44. State of Kerala


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Government Secretariat,
Thiruvananthapuram 695001 Respondent No.44
45. State of Madhya Pradesh
Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat,
Bhopal 462004

Respondent No.45

46. State of Maharashtra


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400032

Respondent No.46

47. State of Manipur,


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Imphal

Manipur 795001

Respondent No.47

48. State of Meghalaya


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Main Secretariat, Shillong
Meghalaya 793001

Respondent No.48

49. State of Mizoram


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Capital Complex,
Khatla, Aizawl 796001

Respondent No.49

50. State of Nagaland


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
New Secretariat Complex,
Kohima 797004

Respondent No.50

51. State of Odisha


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Odisha 751 013

Respondent No.51

52. State of Punjab


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Civil Secretariat, Sector 9
Chandigarh

Respondent No.52

53. State of Rajashtan


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Jaipur 302005

Respondent

No.53

54. State of Sikkim


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Tashiling Secretariat,
Gangtok 737101

Respondent

No.54

55. State of Tamil Nadu


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,

Secretariat, Chennai 600009 Respondent No.55


56. State of Telangana
Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat

Respondent No.56

57. State of Tripura


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
New Secretariat Building,
Capital Complex,
Agartala 799006

Respondent No.57

58. State of Uttar Pradesh


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Lucknow 226001 Respondent No.58
59. State of Uttarakhand
Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Subash Road,
Dehradun 248001

Respondent No.59

60. State of West Bengal


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Advantage Bengal Building, 700016 Respondent
No.60
61. Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar
Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Port Blair 744101 Respondent No.61
62. Union Territory of Chandigarh
Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Territory Secretariat, Sector 9
Chandigarh
Respondent No.62
63. Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli
Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Silvassa 396230 Respondent No.63

64. Union Territory of Daman & Diu


Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Fort Area,
Moti Daman, Daman 396220 Respondent No.64
65. Union Territory of Delhi
Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, New Delhi 110113 Respondent No.65
66. Union Territory of Lakshwadeep
Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, Kavaratti 682555 Respondent No.66
67. Union Territory of Puducherry
Notice through
Secretary, Legal Affairs,
Secretariat, 605 001
PETITION

UNDER

Respondent No.67

ARTICLE

32

OF

THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A


WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY
OTHER

APPROPRIATE

DIRECTIONS

UNDER

WRIT

ARTICLE

ORDERS
32OF

THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To
HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
LORDSHIPS

COMPANION

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

JUSTICES

OF

THE

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE


NAMED.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. The Petitioner in the instant case is the All India
Judges Association whose members are judges of the
subordinate judiciary from all over India and was
formed and registered in 1985. The petitioner was
formed with the primary objective of improving the
service conditions of the judges in sub ordinate
judiciary. Ever since its inception, the AIJA has
striven towards achieving its objective and has
approached this Honble Court on several occasions in
the past by filing writ petition raising issues of
common good and for the benefit of the subordinate
judiciary as a whole. Resultantly, this Honble Court
had directed for constitution of the Honble Justice
Shetty Commission and Honble Justice Padmanabhan
Commission for recommending improvements in the
service

conditions

of

judicial

officers.

These

commissions have favourably shaped the service


conditions of all the judges in sub ordinate judiciaryin
compliance with the directions by this Honble Court.
Thus, the efforts of AIJA are aimed towards the

welfare of its members and not of any particular


individual. In this context, it is submitted that the
instant petition is being filed so that the judicial
officers are granted their essential and basic service
conditions.
1A. That the petitioner has authorised Sh. Devendra
Kumar Jangala who is presently posted as Additional
District Judge Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and who is also
Honorary Secretary (Zonal) of the Petitioner to file
the present petition. The petitioner before filing the
present had made a representation to the Cabinet
Secretary, Government of India on 13/05/205 (which
is on record as Annexure:P-10). However the the
abovementioned

representation

was

rejected

by

letter dated 23/06/2015 (which is on record as


Annexure:P-11) on the ground that the conditions of
service of judicial officers of State Public Judiciary is
not within the competence of the Central Government
and that the Honble Supreme Court has been seized
of the matter.
2. That

Article

50

of

the

Constitution

of

India

incorporates the concept of separation of judiciary


from the executive in the public services of the State

and the distinction

between

the two hasto be

maintained.
3. Importantly,

though

the

periodic

exercise

of

constituting a Pay Commission for the executive in


public

service

has

been

undertaken

by

the

Central/State Government and pay scales are being


reviewed, no such mechanism has been put in place
for the judicial services despite specific directions by
the Honble Court to this effect. This Honble Court in
All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India
1992 (1) SCC 119 was pleased to direct that as
and when such Commissions or committees are set
up in the states and Union Territories hereafter, they
separately examine and review pay structure of
judicial

officers

keeping

in

view

all

relevant

aspects.(p.199 SCC).

4. However, these directions by this Honble Court were


sought to be reviewed by the Union of India and the
States. This Honble Court accordingly in All India
Judges Association Vs. Union of India 1993 (4)
SCC 288 while disposing off the review petitions, was
pleased to hold that merely because Article 309 of

the Constitution of India gives power to the executive


and the legislature to prescribe the service conditions
of the judiciary, and that after the council of States
make the necessary declaration under Article 312 of
the

Constitution

of

India,

the

Parliament

is

empowered to create All India Judicial Service, it


does not mean that the judiciary should have no say
in the matter. It would be against the spirit of the
Constitution to deny any role to the judiciary in that
behalf for theoretically it would not be impossible for
the executive or the legislature to turn and twist the
tail of the judiciary by using the said power. Such a
consequence would be against one of the seminal
mandates of the Constitution, namely to maintain
independence of the judiciary and no price is too
heavy to secure it. This Honble Court had then held
that it was for this reason that the practice of
entrusting the work of recommending the service
conditions of members of subordinate judiciary to the
same

Pay

Commission

which

recommended

the

service conditions of the other services required


reconsideration. This Honble Court has ruled that the
service conditions of the Judicial Officers should be

laid down and reviewed from time to time by an


independent Commission exclusively constituted for
the

purpose,

and

the

composition

of

such

Commission should reflect adequate representation


on behalf of the judiciary. The question with regard to
pay scales in respect of the members of the judicial
service had however been initially referred to the 5 th
Central Pay Commission. However, in view of the
directions as above, the Govt. of India by a resolution
dated 21/03/1996, constituted the First National
Judicial pay Commission under the Chairmanship of
Honble Mr. Justice K. J. Shetty, a former Judge of
this Honble Court. Subsequently, by an amendment
made on 24/10/1996, the reference to the 5 th Central
Pay Commission with regard to the fixation of Pay
Scales of the Judicial Officers was deleted.

5. That the 5th Central Pay Commission submitted its


report on 30/01/1997, which was accepted by the
government on 30/09/1997 and was made applicable
w.e.f. 01/01/1996. The First National Judicial Pay
Commission

(Shetty

Commission

for

short)submitted its report on 11/11/1999 wherein

after taking into consideration the recommendations


which

have

been

made

by

the

5thCentral

Pay

Commission and the pivotal role of the subordinate


judiciary a master pay scale was evolved. The Shetty
Commission came to the conclusion that the number
of pay Scale should be equal to the number of clearly
identifiable levels of responsibility also taking into
consideration the scope for promotional avenues. It is
a matter of record that even the recommendations
made by the Shetty Commission have been resisted
on one pretext or the other including the alleged plea
of financial burden. Finally, this Honble Court in its
judgment dated 21/03/2002 vide All India Judges
Association Vs. Union of India 2002 (4) SCC
247 was pleased to accept the recommendations of
the

Shetty

Commission

subject

to

certain

modifications by this Honble Court. This Honble


Court also directed that the Pay Scale so approved
shall be w.e.f. 01/07/1996.

6. That though this Honble Court in its review judgment


(as above) had directed that the service conditions of
the

Judicial

Officers

should

be

laid

down

and

reviewed from time to time by an independent


Commission exclusively constituted for the purpose,
inspite of the Central Government constituting the
subsequent Pay Commission namely the 6 th Central
Pay Commission, no such separate independent
Commission was constituted to review the service
conditions of the subordinate judiciary as directed by
this Honble Court. The Shetty Commission in its
report while arriving at the Pay Scales recommended
for the subordinate judicial service, had noted that
while fixing the maximum of the master pay scale, it
had been constraint by the vertical cap of the salaries
of the High Court Judges. In other words, the district
judges could not get more salary than the High Court
Judges, whose salaries were statutorily fixed. It was
however, recommended that as and when the salaries
of High Court Judges were raised, the salary of the
Judicial

Officers

should

also

be

increased

by

maintaining the ratio which the Shetty Commission


had recommended. The salary of the High Court
Judges was revised by the High Court and Supreme
Court Judges (salaries and conditions of service)
Amendment

Ordinance,

2009,

published

in

the

Gazette of India vide notification dated 09/01/2009.


Subsequently, this became an Act of the Parliament.
Since the Pay Scales admissible to the subordinate
judiciary saw no revision, this Honble Court vide
order

dated

28/04/2009

in

All

India

Judges

Association Vs. Union of India 2011 (12) SCC


678 was pleased to appoint Honble Mr. Justice E.
Padmanabhan, Retd. Judge of the Madras High Court
to make suitable recommendations having regard to
the recommendations already made by the Shetty
Commission

in

respect

of

the

pay

scales

and

allowances and certain other perquisites of the


judicial officers.

7. That Justice E. Padmanabhan submitted his report


dated 17.07.2009and made several determinations
on the basis of the First National Judicial Pay
Commission Report consequent to revision of scale of
pay of the High Court Judges. The Commission
however, recommended that its recommendations be
implemented w.e.f. 01/01/2006 i.e. the date from
which the recommendations made by the 6 thCentral
Pay Commission were implemented by the Central

Government. However, the Commission in para VIII


of its Report noted that several demands made by
the Judicial Officers and Pensioners fell outside the
scope of reference made to the Commission. All these
demands, as the report of the Commission would
depict, pertained to the various service conditions of
the Judicial Officers, but were not considered by the
Commission since these were found to be beyond the
scope of limited reference made to the Commission.
The terms of reference of the said Padmanabhan
Commission were severely restricted on account of it
being limited to determine the pay scale of judicial
officers on the basis of recommendations of the
Shetty Commission. The Honble Commission in para
74 of its report thus, recorded the following:
Since most of the demands so made are
outside the scope of reference made to this
Commission

by

the

Honble

Court,

this

Commission has enumerated those demands,


which
Honble

require

consideration

Court or

by

either

separate

by

this

Judicial

Pay

Commission or at the appropriate level and they


are given hereunder:

8. The Commission in Part VIII of its report, has made


reference to at least 56 essential conditions of service
which could not be reviewed by it since they were
outside the scope of reference to the Commission. In
Part IX the Commission recorded the following
demands which do not even cost the exchequer.
i)

Five Days a week.

ii)

Provision for Transit/Guest House facility.

iii)

Issuance of Car stickers for personal cars of


Judicial officers as also for providing red light
atop the vehicles of the particular level of Judicial
Officers.

iv)

Issue of SeniorityRota-Quota.

v)

Separate Forum (State Level and National Level)


for settlement of various administrative and
service grievances/problems.

vi)

Welfare activities for the fraternity in general.

vii)

Advance of salary for meeting contingencies 15


days salary prayed.

viii) Protocol to Distt. Judiciary to be maintained as


per their status as executives.
ix)

Priority in reservations/bookings: alongwith


transportation, quest houses, rest houses etc.

x)

Identity Cards to Pensioners and


Pensioners to avail medical facilities etc.

xi)

II ACP alongwith fixation of seniority to be


finalized promptly.

Family

xii)

Change of nomenclature of Civil Judge (Junior


Division) to Civil Judge.

9. Thus, several essential conditions of service of the


judicial officers are left to be addressed till date. It is
in view of these, the Honble Commission too, in Para
75 of its report has stressed upon the need to have a
pay commission periodically constituted for judicial
officers simultaneously with the Pay Commission
constituted

for

Government.

the

employees

To quote

from

the

of

the

words

Central
of

the

Commission:
appointment of a Judicial Pay Commission
should normally be made when Central Pay
Commission is constituted and notified.
10.

That in exercise of its executive power under

Article 73 of the Constitution of India, the Central


Government constitutes Pay Commissions generally
after a gap of every 10 years for periodic revision of
pay

scales

admissible

to

Central

Government

employees. However, no such mechanism has been


devised for periodic revision of pay and allowances
admissible

to

the

members

of

the

subordinate

judiciary inspite of specific directions by this Honble

Court and the recommendations for such periodic Pay


Commission made by the First National Judicial Pay
Commission and the Padmanabhan Commission as
well. It may be noted that the Central Government
has

now

notified

constitution

of

the

7th

Pay

Commission for the Central Government Employees,


but no such exercise has been undertaken to revise
the

conditions

of

service

of

the

members

of

subordinate judiciary.
11. That in view of the above, the Petitioner prefers the
present

petition

to

seek

uniform

review

and

improvement of the service conditions of the judicial


officers throughout the country. The Petitioner seeks
constitution of a commission to review the service
conditions of the members of the district judiciary,
including the following but not restricted to:
i.

Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending


changes/modification

of

emoluments

structure

including but not restricted to pay, allowances


including

inter

alia

residential

allowance,

conveyance
traveling

allowance,

allowance

and

library allowance, and other facilities/benefits, in


cash or kind, having regard to rationalization,

,uniformity and simplification therein as well as the


specialized needs of district judiciary in India with
due emphasis on aspects unique to the judges of
the district courts in India;

ii.

Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending


changes to bring uniformity in the pay scales of
District judges in India

iii.

Examining the principles governing the structure of


pension and other retirement benefits, including
revision of pension in the case of subordinate court
judges including those who have retired prior to
the date of the effect of the recommendation of
the proposed Commission.

iv.

Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending


changes/modification, including but not restricted
to the principle of parity,of the benefit of pension
and other retirement benefits to judges appointed
after

31/12/2003

at

various

levels

of district

judiciary in India as per the pension scheme


approved by this Honble Court which is payable to

judges appointed up to 31/12/2003, as against the


New Pension Scheme (NPS) implemented by the
government.

v.

Increasing the age of retirement of District judges


in India;

vi.

Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending


the principle and roadmap for creation of All India
Judicial Services;

vii.

Developing a framework for emoluments structure


linked with the need to attract the most suitable
talent to judicial service at various levels of district
judiciary in India and promoting efficiency,with due
regard to expectations of stakeholders, and to
recommend

appropriate

training

and

capacity

building through a competency based framework;

viii.

Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending


the principle and roadmap for creation of more
posts

periodically

to

meet

the

increasing

requirement and improve the judicial infrastructure


available to the lower judiciary;

ix.

Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending


changes to

correct

the

anomaly

in

the

increments/allowances of judges from different


cadres;

x.

Examining and removing any anomalies of the First


National Judicial Pay Commission as well of J.
Padmanabhan Committee report;

xi.

Examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending


various

measures,including

preventive

measures, to ensure safety and security to district


judiciary in India so as to ensure that the judges
are

able

to

discharge their

judicial

duties

fearlessly;

xii.

Examining, rationalising and recommending the


ratio of vacancies for appointment as judges of
High Courts from amongst the members of the bar
and

the

judicial

officers

to

ensure

fair

representation to the judicial officers from the


State Judicial Services and further the judicial
officers who join the State Judicial Services at the
entry level be also given due representation in the
High Courts and at the higher levels of the
judiciary;

xiii.

Examining,
principles
permanent
periodically

evolving
and

roadmap

review

to

recommending

for

independent

and emoluments
restricted

and

the

pay,

service

cash

or

a
to

conditions

including

allowances

in

of

commission/body

structure

facilities/benefits,

constitution

the

but

and

not
other

kind, and the

principles that should govern the District Judiciary


in India;

xiv.

Examining, evolving and recommending principles


and roadmap for better promotional opportunities
for Judicial officers from State Judicial Service
particularly promotion in Higher Judicial Service
and

representation

in

High

Court

and

Apex

Court,including periodic review of the Rules of

Recruitment and Promotion that should govern the


district judiciary.

12. It is submitted that the only efficacious remedy


available with the petitioner on account of violation of
Petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 16 is by way of the present petition
under Article 32.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are


as follows:
a. That in 1989 a petition under Article 32 was filed
by the All India judges, Association and its
working President for reliefs through directions
for the setting up of an All India Judicial Service
and for bringing about uniformity and improving
conditions

of

service

of

members

of

the

subordinate judiciary throughout the country.


The said writ petition was disposed in the case
of All India Judges Association v. Union of
India

and

Ors.

1992

(1)

SCC

119

(hereinafter referred as first AIJA case), giving

significant directions in respect of enhanced pay


scales, enhancement and uniformity in age of
retirement and additional allowances, while also
recognizing the dire conditions of service of the
subordinate judiciary.
True copy of the judgment of the Honble
Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v.
Union of India and Ors. 1992 (1) SCC 119 is
marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P1(Pages ___ to ____)
b. That in 1993 the Union of India filed a review
petition pursuant to first AIJA case, seeking
certain modifications/clarifications. This review
petition was disposed of by the judgment,
entitled All India Judges Association and Ors.
Etc. v. Union of India and Ors etc., - 1993 (4)
SCC 288 (hereinafter referred as second AIJA
case). The Court reasserted its views of the
first AIJA case and held in this case that the
parity

should be

maintained between

the

political executive, the legislators and the


Judges and not between the Judges and the
administrative executive.

True copy of the judgment of the Honble


Supreme Court in All India Judges Association
v. Union of India and Ors. 1993 (4) SCC 288
is marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE
P-2 (Pages ___ to ____)
c. That in 1996 pursuant to the directions issued
by this Court in the second AIJA case, the
Government

of

India

by

resolution

constituted the First National Judicial Pay


Commission under the chairmanship of Mr.
Justice K.J. Shetty (hereinafter referred as
Honble Mr. Justice Shetty Commission) and in
the year 1999 the said commission submitted
its report with recommendations.
True copy of the relevant extracts of Honble
Mr.

Justice

Shetty

Commission

report

is

marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P3 (Pages ___ to ____)

d. In the case of All India Judges Association and


Ors.

v.

dUnion

of

India,

2002

(4)

SCC

247(hereinafter referred as third AIJA case) this


Honble

Court

rejected

the

contention

of

Financial

Burden

Government

and

to

directed

comply

the

with

the

recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission.


True copy of the judgment of the Honble
Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v.
Union of India and Ors. 2002 (4) SCC 247 is
marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-4
(Pages ___ to ____)
e. In

March

2008

the

6th

Central

Pay

Scale

Commission submitted its report revising the


pay

scale of

the executive

branch

of

the

government.
True copy of the relevant extracts of 6th Central
Pay Scale Commission report is marked and
annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-5

(Pages

___ to ____)

f. That

on

appointed

28/04/2009
the

this

Honble

Honble
Mr.

Court

Justice

E.

Padmanabhan Commission to determine the pay


scales of all the Judicial Officers etc. throughout
the country on the basis of the Honble Mr.
Justice Shetty Commissions Report.

True copy of the order of the Honble Supreme


Court dated 28/04/2009 is marked and annexed
hereto as ANNEXURE P-6 (Pages ___ to ____)
g. That the Honble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan
Commission was directed to determine scales of
pay, allowances, perquisites etc. of Judicial
Officers in the cadre of (i) Civil Judges (Junior
Division), (ii) Civil Judges (Senior Division), (iii)
District

Judges

(Entry

Grade),

(iv)

District

Judges (Selection Grade) and (v) District Judges


(Super

Time

Scale)

having

regard

to

the

recommendations already made by the Honble


Justice Shetty Commission in respect of the pay
scales, allowances and other perquisites of the
Judicial Officers, and so also revised Pensionary
benefits payable to Judicial Pensioners.

h. That in 2009 Honble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan


Committee

submitted

its

report,

however,

various demands made by the Judicial Officers


Association

were

not

considered

by

the

Committee as they were beyond its scope. The

Committee

vide

enumerated

the

paragraph
areas

to

73

be

and

reviewed

74
by

Separate Judicial Pay Commission.


True copy of the relevant extracts of Honble
Mr. Justice Padmanabhan Committee report is
marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P7

(Pages ___ to ____)

The Petitioners most respectfully submit that


since then there has been no review of the
service conditions of the subordinate judiciary
even when there has been a periodic review in
respect of administrative services. Thus, even
after

three

rounds

of

litigations

and

two

commissions spanning across two decades that


have brought certain widespread changes in the
working conditions of the subordinate judiciary
in India, there still remains a disparity between
the

working

judicial

conditions

services

and

of

the

other

subordinate

administrative

services in terms of monetary benefit as well as


social security. It is most respectfully submitted
that the pivotal reason for this uncertainty is

lack of a permanent body that can better


understand

the

concerns

and

regulate

the

service conditions of the subordinate judiciary.

i. That on 28/02/2014 the Central Government


has

constituted

the

Seventh

Central

Pay

Commission to yet again review the pay scales


and other allowances of the executive. As a
consequence the negative gap with regard to
the pay scales between the Judiciary and
Political Executive, who are at par, would
increase. This kind of discriminative treatment
amongst equals is volatile of Article 16 read
with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A
copy

of

the

Government

resolution

constituting

passed
the

by

the

Seventh

Pay

Commission is hereto marked and annexed as


ANNEXURE P-8. (Pages ___to___)
j. That on 07/07/2014, the 20th Law Commission
has submitted the 245th report on arrears and
backlogs.

In

the

said

report

the

Law

Commission has recommended to increase the

retirement age of the judges in subordinate


industry from 60 to 62.
True copy of the relevant extracts of 245th Law
Commission report is marked and annexed
hereto as ANNEXURE P-9.

(Pages ___ to

____)
k. That

the

petitioner

has

made

several

representations to the respondents requesting


them to review the service conditions of the
judicial

officers.

representation

was

On

13/05/2015

made

to

the

Cabinet

Secretary of the Government of India

to

constitute an All India Judicial Commission to


review the service conditions of the judicial
officers of District Judiciary in India..
True copy of representation

dated

13/05/2015 made to the Cabinet Secretary of


the

Government

of

India

is

marked

and

annexed hereto as ANNEXURE:P-10. (Pages


___to___).
l. That

on

23/06/2015,

the

abovementioned

representation was rejected by Government of


India on the ground that service conditions of
the judicial officers of State Public Judicial is

not

within

the

competence

of

Central

Government and the Honble Supreme Court


has been seized of the matter.
True copy of letter dated 23/06/2015 issued by
the Joint Secretary of the Government of India
is

marked

and

annexed

hereto

as

ANNEXURE:P-11. (Pages ___to___).


J. It is respectfully stated and submitted that in
the aforesaid background, the Petitioner seeks
to prefer the present petition on the following
amongst the other grounds that may be urged
at the time of hearing of the present petition.
The grounds set out hereunder are without
prejudice to one another.
2. GROUNDS

A. Because there is parity between the Judges and


Political Executive and as such they have to be
treated equally. This Honble Court in the second AIJA
case held that the judicial service is not service in the
sense

of

employees.

'employment'.

The

judges

are

not

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. In a democracy 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 legislatures
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 U.S.A., 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 par
with

the

members

of

the

judiciary,

either

constitutionally or functionally. This Court also held


second AIJA case that Under the Constitution, the
judiciary is above the administrative executive and
any attempt to place it on par with the administrative
executive has to be discouraged.

B. Because keeping Judges in want of the essential


accoutrements impedes them in the proper discharge
of their duties. This Court in the second AIJA case
held that this 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 trite
to say that those who are in want cannot 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

judges

in

want

of

the

essential

accoutrements and thus to impede them in the


proper discharge of their duties is to impair and
whittle away justice itself.

C. Because there is discrimination amongst the service


conditions of Judges and Political Executive who are
par under the Constitution. Pay scales of Judicial
officers

have

become

lesser

than

Executive

particularly in Higher Judicial Service cadre for


example

as

per

Honble

Mr.

Justice

Shetty

Commission super time scale for HJS was 22850 to


24850 and

in 5th CPC was 22400-to-24500

but in

Honble Mr. Justice Padmnabhan Report it was 70290


to 76450

but in 6th CPC its 67000

to 79000. This

negative gap would increase after 7 th CPC. In these


circumstances it is essential that a judicial body may
be set up to review the working conditions of the
judges of the subordinate judiciary periodically.

D. Because it is absolutely necessary that appropriate


conditions should be provided for the judicial officer

and he should have reasonable mental peace in order


that

he

may

perform

his

duties

satisfactorily.

Rendering justice is a difficult joband unless the


judicial officer has a reasonably worry free mental
condition, it would be difficult to expect unsoiled
justice from his hands. It is therefore imperative that
a judicial commission may be set up to review the
working conditions of the judges of the subordinate
judiciary periodically.

E. Because the 20th Law Commission in its 245th Report


has recommended that, in order to meet the need
for

large

number

of

appropriately

trained

Subordinate Court Judges, the age of retirement of


Subordinate judges be raised to 62. The benefits of
increase in the retirement age be made available to
judicial officers in terms of the directions of the
Supreme Court in second AIJA Case. Thus there is
a need to change the service conditions of the
judicial officers including but not limited to the
increase in the age of retirement.
F. Because the judges of subordinate judiciary should
be treated differently from the officers of the

administrative services. It is pertinent to point out


thatearlier

also

the

Law

Commission

in

its

14thReport had recommended to raise the age of


retirement of subordinate judges to 62 years, in
order to meet the need of a large number of
adequately

trained

judicial

officers.

The

Law

Commission in its 14th report deals with this aspect


at Page 123 of the report and said that there is yet
another

reason

why

the

question

of

age

of

retirement of subordinate judges should be treated


differently from that in other state services as
judicial officer enters service at a comparatively
higher age, than a recruit to the executive or
administrative services. It would therefore, be
proper that the retirement age of the judicial officer
should be relatively higher age than that of an
executive officer so as to enable him to serve for
the full number of years, if he retains his fitness
and capacity of work till he reaches such higher
age. It is thus, humbly submitted that the nature of
work that the judicial officers and executive officers
undertake is different and by treating unequal
equally (the age of superannuation of both services

is 60 years) Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of


India are being violated.

G. Because there is a need to review the working


conditions of the judges of the subordinate judiciary
post Honble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan Commission. It
is submitted that since then there has not been any
review of the service conditions of the judicial
officers. Further the scope of Honble Mr. Justice
Padmanabhan Commission was

confined only to

determine the pay scales of all the Judicial Officers


etc. throughout the country on the basis of the
Honble Justice Shetty Commissions Report i.e. First
National Judicial Pay Commission. However on the
other hand the members of administrative services
had

the

benefit

of

periodic

review

of

service

conditions by way of several pay commissions. It is


therefore necessary that the service conditions of the
judicial services may be reviewed by way of a judicial
commission.

H. Because the anomaly in the increments given to the


judicial officers throughout the country ought to be

removed.

Honble

Mr.

Justice

E.

Pabnanabham

suggested Master pay scale with 44 stages. In order


to spread the pay scale between Rs. 27700 to Rs.
76450.00

in

44

stages

Honble

Mr.

Justice

Padmanabhan determined increments of low amount.


It

is

most

respectfully

submitted

that

the

recommendation needs to be reviewed in view of


anomaly in fixing increments. For example, increment
of

Civil

Judge

Senior

Division

is

Rs.

1230.00;

increment of District Judge Entry Level also starts


with Rs. 1230.00. Next stage of increment of district
Judge Entry Level is Rs. 1380.00, the increment of DJ
Selection Grade however again starts from Rs.
1230.00. Apart from this anomaly static rate of
increment put the judicial officers in loss in perpetuity
when compared with running pay bands suggested by
6th pay commission and accepted by Hon Apex Court
while determining pay scales of the employees of
Supreme Court of India.
I. Because the judges of subordinate judiciary are
bearing a recurring loss in view of the anomaly in
increments. It is pertinent to point out that Honble
Mr.

Justice

Shetty

Commission

had

consideredgranting increments as a percentage of


basic pay, but at that point of time such system was
found operationally inconvenient (Para 15.51 report).
However

the

6th

Central

Pay

Commission

recommended running pay bands by suggesting


increments @ 3% of basic pay.

Advantages of

system to fix salary in pay bands are mentioned in


Para 2.2.13 of sixth Pay Commission Report. It is
most respectfully submitted that pay band and grade
pay system may be adopted to avoid recurring loss of
the Judges.
J. Because it is essential to bring uniformity inthe pay
scales of the judges who have been recruited through
different sources.For example, a person joining as
Civil Judge Junior Division (CJJD for short) has an
opportunity for promotion after 5 to 7 years. If he is
not promoted in 5 years, even then he can get ACP
and will be shifted to new pay scale. In view of this it
is most respectfully submitted that stages of pay
scale for CJJD cadre can be reduced to 17 stages. A
judge in the cadre of Civil Judge Senior Division
(CJSD for short) gets an opportunity for promotion
in the cadre of District Judge (DJ for short) in five

years. His optimum length of service in the cadre of


CJSD will be of 10 to 11 years, so 11 stages can be
dedicated in the master pay scale for the cadre of
CJSD. 8 stages could be keep for the cadre of DJ
Entry Level, 8 stages for the cadre of DJ Selection
Grade and 4 stages for DJ Super Time in this way,
Master pay scale of 36 stages will be appropriate and
will cater the need to provide 3% increment to the
judges with running pay band but without grade pay.
In the absence of a body,that is familiar with the
judiciary

and

the

facilities

required

of

judicial

officers,to review and redress these anomalies, it is


difficult

to

bring

improvement

in

the

working

conditions of the sub-ordinate judiciary.


K. Because there is a need to review the entitlements of
the judicial officers by way of allowances. Honble Mr.
Justice Padmanabhan proposed hike in some of the
allowances.

Honble

Mr.

Justice

Padmanabhan

however avoided considering recommendations of 6 th


central pay commission regarding the changes in the
scheme

of

introduction

providing

some

of

allowances.

new

allowances

and

Sumptuary

allowances is required to be provided @ Rs. 6000.00

per month to DJ Rs. 4500.00 to CJSD and Rs.3000.00


to CJJD, total expenses of electricity and water
charges

are

directed

to

be

reimbursed,

robe

allowance of Rs. 16000.for block of three years be


provided, reimbursement for mobile phone bill to be
provided, conveyance allowance of Rs.7000.00 per
month plus DA be provided, HTC be provided every
year. Children education allowance and hostel subsidy
be provided to the judges as recommended by 6th
pay commission.
L. Because in view of the nature of work and stringent
restrictions thereon, it is essential that the judicial
officers may be paid pension as per the pension
scheme approved by this Honble Court as against
the new scheme implemented by the government. It
is

most

respectfully

submitted

that

the

pensionscheme as recommended by Honble Mr.


Justice Shetty Commission is not applicable to newly
recruited Judges. They are required to contribute
10% of basis pay as member contributory scheme.
As service conditions of judges are governed by
recommendations

of

Honble

Mr.

Justice

Shetty

Commission the state government cannot unilaterally


withdraw the pension scheme for the judges. The

judges recruited after 2003 are neither getting the


benefits of pension scheme not they are getting total
pay recommended by Honble Mr. Justice Shetty
Commission.
M.Because

to

maintain

the

independence

of

the

judiciary it is necessary that there is an Independent


Commission which has the power to review the
service conditions of the Subordinate Judiciary. This
Court held in the second AIJA case that the present
practice of entrusting the work of recommending the
service conditions of the members of the subordinate
judiciary

to

the

same

Pay

Commissions

which

recommend the service conditions of the other


services

requires

reconsideration.

The

service

conditions of the judicial officers should be laid down


and reviewed from time to time by an independent
Commission exclusively constituted for the purpose,
and the composition of such commission should
reflect adequate representation on behalf of the
judiciary. In this regard the Honble Court further
noted in the second AIJA case that in view of the
separation of the powers under the Constitution, and
the need to maintain the independence of the

judiciary to protect and promote democracy and the


rule of law, it would have been ideal if the most
dominant power of the executive and the legislative
over the judiciary, viz., that of determining its service
conditions had been subjected to some desirable
checks and balances. This is so even if ultimately, the
service

conditions

incorporated

in

of

and

the

judiciary

declared

by

have
the

to

be

legislative

enactments. But the mere fact that Article 309 gives


power

to

the

executive

and

the

legislature

to

prescribe the service conditions of the judiciary does


not mean that the judiciary should have no say in the
matter. It

would

be

against

the

spirit

of

the

Constitution to deny any rule to the judiciary in that


behalf, for theoretically it would not be impossible for
the executive or the legislature to turn and twist the
tail of the judiciary by using the said power. Such a
consequence would be against one of the seminal
mandates of the Constitution, namely, to maintain
the independence of the judiciary.

N. Because the work of the judicial officers throughout


the country is of the similar nature, the service

conditions have to be uniform. This Court in the


second

AIJA

entrusting

case

the

emphasized

work

of

the

necessity

prescribing

the

of

service

conditions for the judicial officers to a separate Pay


Commission exclusively set up for the purpose. We
reiterate the importance of such separate commission
and also of the desirability of prescribing uniform pay
scales to the judges all over the country. Since such
pay scales will be the minimum deserved by the
judicial officers, the argument that some of the
States may not be able to bear the financial burden is
irrelevant. The uniform service conditions as and
when laid down would not, of course, affect any
special or extra benefits which some States may be
bestowing upon their judicial officers.

O. Because there is a need for creation of All India


Judicial Services to improve and bring uniformity the
administration of justice throughout the country. The
need for All India Judicial Services was felt as early
as

in

1958

recommended

when

the

creation

of

14th
an

Law
All

Commission

India

Judicial

Services. Subsequently an amendment was also


brought in the constitution enabling the government

to establish All India Judicial Services. However


despite the directions of this Honble Court to
examine the feasibility of the implementation of these
recommendations in the case of first AIJA case, till
date

nothing

concrete

has

happened

for

establishment of AIJS.

P. Because there is wide variance in the pay structure


prevailing in the various States and Union Territories
and the judicial officers are remunerated differently
for

similar

nature

of

work.

pay

commission

separately constituted for examining and reviewing


the pay structures of judicial officers across the
country will be able to better assess the reasons for
such variance and bring about uniformity, as far as
may be possible, in the terms and conditions of
service of the subordinate judiciary.

Q. Because the Court needs to issue directions to the


authorities

to

perform

their

obligatory

duties

whenever there is a failure on their part to discharge


them and the legislature and executive in this
instance have failed to meet their obligations by
neglecting to improve the service conditions of the
subordinate judiciary.

R. Because by deleting a reference in respect of pay


scales of judicial officers from the terms of reference

of

the

5th

Central

contemporaneously

Pay

Commission

constituting

the

and
Shetty

Commission, the Central Government had agreed to


set up a pay commission specifically for judicial
officers at the same time as constitution of a pay
commission for executives. However, the Central
Government has failed to constitute a separate pay
commission

for

the

subordinate

judiciary

subsequently when it constituted the 6th Central Pay


Commission in 2008 and when it recently constituted
the 7th Central Pay Commission in 2014.

S. Because the Central Government has rejected the


representation of the petitioner on the ground that
this Honble Court has been seized of the matter. In
these circumstances, the petitioner are left with no
option but to approach this Honble Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for redressal of
their grievances.

T. The Petitioner craves leave to add, amend or alter the


grounds during the course of pendency of the instant
Writ Petition.

3. That the Petitioner has not filed any other or similar


Petition before this Honble Court or any other Court
for similar relief as prayed for in the present Writ
Petition.

PRAYER

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Honble Court


may be pleased:

1. To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of


mandamus or such other writ / order / direction as
may be necessary directing the Respondents to
constitute All India Judicial Commission in terms of
the

representation

made

by

the

Petitioner

to

Respondent No. 1 on 13/05/2015 to review the


service

conditions

of

the

judicial

officers

of

subordinate judiciary in India including but not


limited to Pay Scale, Retirement Age, Pension and
other emoluments of the Sub-ordinate judiciary from
time to time;

2. To issue such orders as may be necessary to direct


the Respondent No 1 to undertake appropriate

exercise to ascertain the feasibility of establishing an


All India Judicial Services; and

3. To pass such other orders and further orders as may


be deemed necessary on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL


AS INDUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
SETTLED BY:
MR. GOURAB BANERJI
(SENIOR ADVOCATE)

DRAWN AND FILED BY:

(MAYURI RAGHUVANSHI)
Advocate on Record for the Petitioner

DRAWN ON:
FILED ON: