2001 (2) TMI 1023 - SC - Indian Laws

Establishment of All India Judicial Service with Uniform Designations & Retirement Age

All India Judges Association And Versus Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

The Supreme Court directed the establishment of an All India Judicial Service with uniform designations and retirement age for judicial officers. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Establishment and conditions of All India Judicial Service.2. Uniformity in designations and retirement age of judicial officers.3. Pay scales and allowances for judicial officers.4. Recruitment and promotion criteria for judicial officers.5. Financial responsibility for judicial expenses.6. Increase in Judge strength and retirement age.7. Implementation of Shetty Commission recommendations.Summary:Establishment and Conditions of All India Judicial Service:The Supreme Court directed the establishment of an All India Judicial Service and emphasized the need for uniform designations in civil and criminal sides by March 31, 1993. The retirement age of judicial officers was to be raised to 60 years by December 31, 1992, and the pay scales of judicial officers were to be considered by respective pay commissions. A working library and sumptuary allowance were to be provided by June 30, 1992, and residential accommodation by December 31, 1992.Uniformity in Designations and Retirement Age of Judicial Officers:The Court reiterated that the service conditions of judicial officers should be laid down by an independent commission with adequate representation from the judiciary. The retirement age was extended to 60 years, subject to evaluation at 58 years. The Shetty Commission recommended increasing the retirement age to 62 years, but the Court maintained it at 60 years to align with the constitutional framework.Pay Scales and Allowances for Judicial Officers:The Shetty Commission recommended new pay scales for judicial officers, which were largely accepted by the Court. The pay scales were to be effective from January 1, 1996, with monetary benefits from July 1, 1996. Various allowances such as dearness allowance, house rent allowance, and medical facilities were also recommended. The Court directed that official accommodation should be free of charge, and house rent allowance should be paid only if official accommodation is not provided.Recruitment and Promotion Criteria for Judicial Officers:The Court directed that recruitment to the higher judicial service should be 50% by promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, 25% by promotion through a limited competitive examination, and 25% by direct recruitment from eligible advocates. The requirement of three years of practice for entry into the judicial service was removed, and a fresh recruit should undergo training for at least one year.Financial Responsibility for Judicial Expenses:The Court disagreed with the Shetty Commission's recommendation that the Central Government should bear 50% of the expenses. It directed that the entire expenditure should be borne by the respective States, with the option to approach the finance commission or the Union of India for additional funds.Increase in Judge Strength and Retirement Age:The Court emphasized the need to increase the Judge strength to 50 Judges per 10 lakh people within five years to address the backlog of cases. It directed that existing vacancies should be filled by March 31, 2003, and additional infrastructure should be provided. The retirement age was maintained at 60 years, but re-employment up to 62 years was recommended if there were vacancies in the cadre of District Judges.Implementation of Shetty Commission Recommendations:The Court accepted most of the Shetty Commission's recommendations with some modifications. It directed that pay scales should be implemented from July 1, 2002, and arrears should be paid or credited to provident fund accounts. Compliance reports were to be submitted by September 30, 2002, and any clarifications or proceedings for implementation should be sought only from the Supreme Court.The Court expressed appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae and other counsel.