ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-122
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 21,2002

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BHAWESH KUMAR DERHGAWEN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-6-39] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND KUMAR TIWARI VS. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2021-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
PREM NARAYAN SINGH VS. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2021-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2024-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABAD VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2024-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
R. ANITHA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-11-86] [REFERRED TO]
PRABAL KUMAR GHOSH VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2010-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
KOUSHIK CHAKRABORTY THAKUR VS. HONBLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-2022-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
Rajesh Kumar Pandey VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2008-8-143] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL VS. STATE OF J&K AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2017-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
Shivanand Dhage, S/o. Narasingappa Dhage VS. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore and The High Court of Karnataka, Represented by its Registrar Gene [LAWS(KAR)-2012-1-348] [REFERRED TO]
Shivanand Dhage, S/o. Narasingappa Dhage VS. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore and The High Court of Karnataka, Represented by its Registrar Gene [LAWS(KAR)-2012-1-348] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2013-2-190] [REFERRED TO]
PRABATHU KUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-9-77] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE LAL MATHUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-7-244] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
IMTIYAZ AHMAD VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
M NANDINI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2018-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
M NANDINI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2018-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL VS. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(SC)-2003-5-32] [REFERRED]
SARIKA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-8-192] [REFERRED TO]
K VEERA CHARY VS. HON BLE HIGH COURT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2008-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
P V SHOBHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2010-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
SWATHI SIBI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2023-1-254] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESH PRASAD VS. JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(SC)-2022-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-2-147] [REFERRED TO]
RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA VS. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-58] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-93] [REFERRED TO]
KANUKUNTLA SHANKAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-12-87] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
V KSRIVASTAVA VS. GOVT OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2008-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2008-9-169] [REFERRED TO]
SYED T A NAQSHBANDI VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(SC)-2003-5-13] [REFERRED]
RAKHI RAY VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2010-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
HAGE LAMPU VS. GAUHATI HIGH COURT [LAWS(GAU)-2023-6-73] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. HIGH COURT OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2015-8-151] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2005-5-29] [REFERRED]
RAJEEV BHARDWAJ VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2021-3-64] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. RAHEEM FAROOQUI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
NANDA YADAVRAO SHANKHPALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
SOUVIK MUKHERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2013-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
BIPLAB RANJAN BOSE VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2009-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION- AHMEDABAD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-7-600] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEET SINGH VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
SAPNA SAWHNEY SRIVASTAVA VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH VERMA VS. THE LT GOVERNOR (ADMINISTRATOR) NCT OF DELHI AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-446] [REFERRED]
PAVANESH D. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-7-1594] [REFERRED TO]
C V CHITRA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2008-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR GENERAL VS. DEPARTMENT OF LAW JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS [LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SHANKAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN.SECY.,DEPTT. OF APPOINTMENT & ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL BARI VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-7-143] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA P VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2009-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
N. PREMKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. R CHITRA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-436] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI JOSHI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CH PRADHAN VS. HIGH COURT OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2003-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA VS. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2024-5-69] [REFERRED TO]
T. SANKARA NARAYANA PILLAI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-623] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY [LAWS(SC)-2008-12-187] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHANDRA VERMA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ATTAR SINGH KALKAL & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2004-1-98] [REFERRED]
V.JAYAKUMAR VS. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-154] [REFERRED TO]
K. SUDHAMANI VS. AMRAVATI VELAGAPUDI [LAWS(APH)-2022-9-89] [REFERRED TO]
U, SUREKHA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV BHARDWAJ AND ORS. VS. STATE OF H.P AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2020-3-104] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV BHARDWAJ VS. STATE OF H. P. [LAWS(HPH)-2020-10-95] [REFERRED TO]
K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH VS. NINGAM SIRO [LAWS(SC)-2019-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
T.N.RAGHUPATHY VS. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
S B KHANDELWAL VS. STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-11-88] [REFERRED TO 5.]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. T.NAGAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2012-9-83] [REFERRED TO]
Lakashmikant, S/o. Ramappa Deshi VS. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore and The High Court of Karnataka, Represented by its Registrar General, Ban [LAWS(KAR)-2012-1-175] [REFERRED TO]
Lakashmikant, S/o. Ramappa Deshi VS. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore and The High Court of Karnataka, Represented by its Registrar General, Ban [LAWS(KAR)-2012-1-175] [REFERRED TO]
KUNAL KISHOR VS. LT. GOVERNOR [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-159] [REFERRED TO]
P SENTHIL KUMARAN VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-50] [REFFERED TO]
M SENTHIL KUMAR VS. J SIVAGANESH [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
KAZI ABDUL HASSEM & ORS. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2003-12-77] [REFERRED TO]
BISWAJIT PALIT VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-2-93] [REFERRED TO]
DHEERAJ MOR VS. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2018-1-81] [REFERRED TO]
HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS [LAWS(SC)-2018-10-136] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
BAROT VIJAYKUMAR BALAKRISHNA VS. MODH VINAYKUMAR DASRATHLAL [LAWS(SC)-2011-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
P V INDIRESAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2011-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ MOHAN LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2005-3-89] [REFERRED TO]
MALIK MAZAR SULTAN VS. U P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(SC)-2007-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
HEMANI MALHOTRA VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2008-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN SINGH THAKUR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2021-8-172] [REFERRED TO]
PURENDER VAIDYA DISTRICT VS. HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
S.C. KAINTHLA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-3-81] [REFERRED TO]
K MANIPILLAI VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-2006-3-352] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-8-132] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHUJI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT CLASS III EMPLOYEES VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2004-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV KAUSHIK ETC VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ETC [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-469] [REFERRED]
U. SUREKHA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-3-163] [REFERRED TO]
KARTHIKA KONETI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-10-107] [REFERRED TO]
KUM C. YAMINI VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2017-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
B.S. JAG JEEVAN KUMAR VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
BIMLESH TANWAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2003-3-99] [REFERRED]
M RADHAKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN K ILLIKKADAN, S/O KURUVILA VS. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
Bapuji, S/o. Timmappa Chanal VS. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore and The High Court of Karnataka, Represented by its Registrar General, Bangalo [LAWS(KAR)-2012-1-340] [REFERRED TO]
ALL MANIPUR JUDICIAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2013-3-58] [REFERRED TO]
MANNU LAL JANGDE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-98] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY AGRWAL VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2007-6-68] [REFERRED]
K.M. BHUT VS. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-184] [REFERRED TO]
BUKHAREE AEZAZALEE MAKHADUMALEE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
BUKHAREE AEZAZALEE MAKHADUMALEE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
PARTH SARATHI SEN & ORS VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-5-104] [REFERRED TO]
BARKHA GUPTA VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-227] [REFERRED TO]
SH. RAJINDER SINGH VERMA, VS. THE LT. GOVERNOR (ADMINISTRATOR) NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-435] [REFERRED TO]
SONU AGNIHOTRI VS. CHANDRA SHEKHAR [LAWS(SC)-2024-11-58] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY [LAWS(PAT)-2017-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
M.KAMALAKAR VS. HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
SWATI SWARNIM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH JAIN VS. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-1-214] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR MEENA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI S/O VELAYDHAN PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-11-433] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. RAMESH BHAI [LAWS(KER)-2018-5-348] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND JUSTICE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY & ORS. VS. M. RAMABHADRA RAO & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-10-126] [REFERRED TO]
AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK VS. D. VISALAKSHI [LAWS(SC)-2019-9-83] [REFERRED TO]
DHEERAJ MOR VS. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2019-5-97] [REFERRED TO]
REGALAGADDA VENKATESH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
DHEERAJ MOR VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2020-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHANA ROBIN THACKER VS. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
S D JOSHI VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY [LAWS(SC)-2010-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
B S MATHUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2008-10-66] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2015-6-130] [REFERRED]
VRUSHALI VILAS KUCHEKAR VS. MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(BOM)-2021-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
KANWALJIT SINGH BAJWA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-3-267] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF KERALA; REGISTRAR VS. K A AUGUSTINE [LAWS(KER)-2015-1-106] [REFERRED TO]
S S SEETHAVASAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
J K SHIVAGANESH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
K.K. BALAKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2013-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
DIVAKAR DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-4-185] [REFERRED TO]
T NAGAPPA MYSORE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2012-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
K. B. LENKENNAVAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2013-4-259] [REFERRED TO]
SARITA DAS VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. [LAWS(CHH)-2004-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE ALLAHABAD BANK [LAWS(PAT)-2014-2-126] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYABRATA SAHU VS. STATE ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
POOSA MANASA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
BODAPATI VAMSI KRISHNA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
YASHPAL JAIN VS. SUSHILA DEVI [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-60] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2018-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATKUMAR SHANTILAL THAKKAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2014-4-133] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHAND GAUTAM VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2016-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
N C DAS VS. GAUHATI HIGH COURT THR REGISTRAR [LAWS(SC)-2012-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
C. UMA BHUVANESHWARI VS. CHAIRMAN [LAWS(MAD)-2019-12-600] [REFERRED TO]
SHIKHA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-12-83] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2013-9-103] [REFERRED TO]
D K MONGA; HARMINDER SINGH MADAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2012-11-645] [REFERRED]
VIRENDER PARSHAD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI SHANKAR VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA RAM VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
MARAKKAGARI KRISHNAPPA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHLABIC [LAWS(APH)-2018-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-264] [REFERRED TO]
CHERIAN VARGHESE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2023-1-222] [REFERRED TO]
GOVARDHAN LAL GARI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
II ADDL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE BHIMAVARAM VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
SOCIETY FOR FORMER JUDGE ASSOCIATION VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-46] [REFERRED TO]
R KRISHNAMURTHY VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2012-2-431] [REFERRED TO]
K PANDURANGAN VS. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-408] [FOLLOWED ON]
VASUDEVAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-9-169] [REFERRED TO]
UP JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2022-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-187] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SINGH MEENA VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT [LAWS(DLH)-2022-9-162] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMURTHY VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN CHAND SHRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-4-137] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
SAMAR ROY & ORS VS. PARTHA SARATHI SEN & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH VS. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL [LAWS(SC)-2024-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIMEET SINHA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA [LAWS(SC)-2024-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIV KUMAR CHANDHARIYAVI VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA [LAWS(PAT)-2024-1-69] [REFERRED TO]
DHANESH MUGALI, S/O SHIVAPPA MUGALI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
C Y ILLUR VS. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2006-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
NOSHAD MOHD. KHAN VS. THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
HARENDRA BAHADUR SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-2-118] [REFERRED TO]
JAYESHKUMAR MANSUKHLAL KHOKHANI & 4 VS. GUJARAT SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-177] [REFERRED]
VINAY KUMAR S/O HUKAM CHAND SHARMA VS. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARUP KALIA VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2003-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI DAHIYA VS. REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)-CUM-IN CHARGE [LAWS(GAU)-2013-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
SRI UTPAL PRASAD VS. GAUHATI HIGH COURT [LAWS(GAU)-2013-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER R P F E R VS. RAKESH KUMAR [LAWS(CAL)-2011-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-271] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-271] [REFERRED TO]
SALIL MAHESHWRI VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-220] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD GOEL VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-93] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEET SINGH VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-174] [REFERRED TO]
BARKHA GUPTA VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAKANT TAMRAKAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2018-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2010-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN VS. U P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(SC)-2008-9-163] [REFERRED TO]
V. VENKATA PRASAD VS. HIGH COURT OF A.P. [LAWS(SC)-2016-6-24] [REFERRED TO]
S.C.KAINTHLA VS. STATE OF H.P [LAWS(HPH)-2019-5-61] [REFERRED TO]
VIHAR DURVE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-10-241] [REFERRED TO]
DR KAVITA KAMBOJ VS. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2024-2-91] [REFERRED TO]
J D CHANDNA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2007-8-247] [REFERRED]
VASU DEV VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-201] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF KERALA VS. RESHMA A., D/O.ASHOK P. [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-289] [REFERRED TO]
M RAMABHADRA RAO VS. GOVT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-12-73] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR GURIA SON OF ANAND GURIA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
ASIS RANJAN CHAINI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2004-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
PARMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR ISHWAR ADVOCATE VS. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-1-217] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF H P & ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-79] [REFERRED]
CALCUTTA VS. SHANKAR KUMAR DAS AND ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2009-4-79] [REFERRED]
SUBHASH CHANDR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-283] [REFERRED]
Ulhas, S/o. Ishwar Balekundri VS. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore and The High Court of Karnataka, Represented by its Registrar General, Bangal [LAWS(KAR)-2012-1-349] [REFERRED TO]
Ulhas, S/o. Ishwar Balekundri VS. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore and The High Court of Karnataka, Represented by its Registrar General, Bangal [LAWS(KAR)-2012-1-349] [REFERRED TO]
ABRAHAM MATHEW VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. PREMKALA SINGH HJS AND OTHERS VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THRU R.G. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
Madras High Court Staff Association VS. Government of Tamil Nadu [LAWS(MAD)-2003-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
S T RAJA DANIEL VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-2003-7-107] [FOLLOWED ON]
HIGH COURT OF KERALA VS. RESHMA A. AND OTHERS ETC [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
N.S. SIVAKUMAR VS. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH VS. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-115] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. R GANDHI PRESIDENT MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
GORAKH NATH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2013-7-152] [REFERRED TO]
SUKRM PAL VS. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT [LAWS(P&H)-2013-9-115] [REFERRED TO]
BHAJAN LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2018-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KHATRI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-12-127] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKTI SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-4-172] [REFERRED TO]
S BUVANESWARI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-475] [REFERRED TO]
MUKULIKA S JAWALKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVIN MOHARAO UNHALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
DIPTI DIPAK KOLAPKAR VS. MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(BOM)-2009-5-55] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN K. ILLIKKADAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-1-145] [REFERRED TO]
KANDRU SHRIDHAR VS. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
M.J. RATNA KANTH BABU VS. GOV. OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
PILLA SUNEETHA VS. ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(APH)-2024-2-75] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA CIVIL JUDICAL STAFF ORGANISATION VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-7-287] [REFERRED TO]
LEO ACTIVATION, DIVISION OF BLACK PENCIL ADVERTISING PVT LTD VS. 49TH ALL INDIA CONGRESS OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-432] [REFERRED TO]
Y D SHUKLA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF M P AT JABALPUR [LAWS(MPH)-2008-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
TIRUMAL DEVI EADA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2012-7-80] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

KIRPAL, J. - (1.)THIS Writ Petition pertains to the working conditions of the members of the Subordinate Judiciary throughout the country. THIS is the third round before this Court.
(2.)
In a decision reported in 1992 (1) SCC 119 entitled All India Judges' Association v. Union of India and others, directions were given by this Court in regard to the working conditions and some benefits which should be given to the members of the Subordinate Judiciary. The directions were as follows: 1992 All LJ 185 (Para 60)

"63. We would now briefly indicate the directions we have given in the judgment :

(i) An All India Judicial Service should be set up and the Union of India should take appropriate steps in this regard.

(ii) Steps should be taken to bring about uniformity in designations of officers both in civil and the criminal side by 31/03/1993.

(iii) Retirement age of judicial officers be raised to 60 years and appropriate steps are to be taken by 31/12/1992.

(iv) As and when the Pay Commissions/Committees are set up in the States and Union Territories, the question of appropriate pay scales of judicial officers be specifically referred and considered.

(v) 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.

(vi) Residential accommodation to every judicial officer has to be provided and until State accommodation is available, Government should provide requisitions accommodation for them in the manner indicated by 31/12/1992. In providing residential accommodation, availability of an office room should be kept in view.

(vii) Every District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate should have a State vehicle, judicial officer in sets of five should have a pool vehicle and others would be entitled to suitable loans to acquire two wheeler automobiles within different time limits as specified.

(viii) In-service Institute should be set up within one year at the Central and State or Union Territory level.

A number of directions which were given have been implemented. The Union of India, however, filed a review petition seeking certain modifications/clarifications. This reivew petition was disposed of by the judgment reported in 1993 (4) SCC 288 entitled All India Judges' Association and others etc. v. Union of India and others etc. The relevant findings in the said decision are as follows 1993 Lab IC 2321

(i) Each of the general and special objections of Union of India and States/UTs was dealt with and rejected. The distinction between judicial and other services specifically emphasized. (Paras 7 to 10)

(ii) "The service conditions of 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" (para 11).

(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." (para 14)

". . . . . . . . . The directions are essentially 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 till comprehensive national policy is evolved. (para 15) (Emphasis supplied)"

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

"16. 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 to time hand down decisions which have financial implications and the Government is obligated to loosen its purse recurrently pursuant to such decisions. Secondly, when the duties are obligatory, no grievance can be heard that they cast financial burden. Thirdly, compared to the other plan and non-plan expenditure, we find that the financial burden caused on account of the said directions is negligible. We should have thought that such plea was not raised to resist the discharge of the mandatory duties. The contention that the resources of all the States are not uniform has also to be rejected for the same reasons. The directions prescribe the minimum necessary service conditions and facilities for the proper administration of justice. We believe that the quality of justice administered and the calibre 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 given in the main judgment dated 13-11-1991 were maintained except as regards the following :-

(a) Para 52(a), page 314

"The legal practice of 3 years should be made one of the essential qualifications 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 should be associated with the selection process and his advice should prevail unless there are strong and cogent reasons for not accepting it, which reasons should be recorded in writing.

The rules for recruitment of the judicial officers should be amended forthwith to incorporate the above directions,"

(b) Para 52(b), page 315

"The direction with regard to the enhancement of the superannuation age is modified as follows : While the superannuation age of every subordinate judicial officer shall stand extended up to 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 the earlier superannuation age was less than 58 years."

(c) Para 52(c), page 316

"The direction for granting sumptuary allowance to the District Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates stands withdrawn for the reasons given earlier."

(d) Para 52(d), page 316

"The direction with regard to the grant of residence-cum-library allowance will ceases to operate when the respective State Government/Union Territory Administration start providing the Courts, as directed above, with the necessary law books and journals in consultation with the respective High Courts."

(e) Para 52(e), page 316

"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(ii) and 49(viii) respectively. It is the Principal District Judge at each district headquarter of 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 Metropolitan Magistrate. The 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 litres per month, in consultation with the High Court."

(f) Para 52(f), page 316

"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) Para 52(h), page 316

In view of the time taken to dispose of the Review Petitions, following orders were passed :

(i) "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";

(ii) "the time to comply with the directions to provide law books and law journals to all Courts is extended up to 31/12/1993 failing which the library allowance should be paid to every judicial officer with effect from 1/01/1994, if it is not paid already";

(iii) "the time to provide suitable residential accommodation, requisitioned or Government, to every judicial officer is extended up to 31/03/1994";

(iv) "the time to comply with the rest of the directions is maintained as it was directed by the judgment under review."

(vi) Regarding uniform pay scales the Review judgment emphasised the following:

"36. 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 only be between Judges and the political executive and not between Judges and the administrative executive. Hence the earlier approach of comparison between the service conditions of the Judges and those of 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 same nature, the service conditions have to be uniform. We have also emphasised 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 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."

The question with regard to the pay scales in respect of the members of the Judicial Service was first referred to the Fifth Central Pay Commission. Subsequently by an amendment made on 24/10/1996, the reference to the Fifth Central Pay Commission with regard to the fixation of the pay scales of the Judicial Officers was deleted. We may here note that the Fifth Central Pay Commission submitted its report on 30/01/1997 which was accepted by the Government on 30/09/1997. It became applicable with retrospective effect, that is to say, with effect from 1/01/1996. This is relevant when considering the question as to with effect from which date the Report of the Shetty Commission is to become effective.

(3.)ON 21/03/1996, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the review judgment, the Government of India by a Resolution constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice K. J. Shetty. As per the said Resolution, the following were the terms of reference :
"(a) To evolve the principles which should 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 the officers belonging to subordinate judicial service vis-a-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 pay and to suggest rationalization and simplification thereof with a view to promoting efficiency in Judicial Administration, optimising the size of the judiciary etc."

As the Fifth Central Pay Commission Report had been accepted but no relief was available to the members of the Judicial Subordinate Service, a question arose that pending the recommendation of the Shetty Commission whether any interim orders can be passed giving some relief. Accordingly, on 16/12/1997, another term of reference was added according to which the Commission was empowered to consider and grant such interim relief as it may consider just and proper to all categories of Judicial Officers of all the States/Union Territories. It was made clear that the interim relief, if recommended, was to be adjusted against and included in the package which may become admissible to the Judicial Officers on the final recommendations of the Commission.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.