Judiciary – District Judiciary – Recommendations by Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) regarding various allowances for judicial officers and retired judicial officers – 21 allowances considered by SNJPC in its report:

* Author

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 327 : 2024 INSC 26

All India Judges Association

v.

Union of India & Ors

(Writ Petition (Civil) No 643 of 2015)

04 January 2024

[Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI,

J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration

Allowances granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers

by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC).

Headnotes

Judiciary – District Judiciary – Recommendations by Second

National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) regarding various

allowances for judicial officers and retired judicial officers – 21

allowances considered by SNJPC in its report:

Held: As regards House Building Advance (HBA), recommendation

of SNJPC that HBA be available to judicial officers also for the

purchase of a ready built house from private individuals subject

to such safeguards as may be prescribed by the State Govt.

in consultation with their respective High Courts – Modification

accepted – Payment of Children Education Allowance as

recommended, approved – Recommendation for discontinuation

of City Compensatory Allowance and no recovery to be made,

accepted – Recommendations w.r.t Concurrent Charges Allowance;

payment of conveyance/transport allowance; Earned Leave

Encashment; Electricity and Water Charges; Hill Area/Tough

Location Allowance; Home Orderly/Domestic Help Allowance;

Newspaper and Magazine Allowances; Risk Allowance; Robe

Allowance; Special Pay for Administrative Work; Telephone

Facility; Transfer Grant accepted –As regards Higher Qualification

Allowance, the restrictive condition imposed by SNJPC in regard

to non-extension of advance increments at the ACP stage,

not accepted – Subject to this clarification, recommendations

accepted – Further, out of the five components of house rent

related allowances, two components-Furniture and Air Conditioner

Allowance and Maintenance introduced for the first time – All the 

328 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

components suggested are accepted – As regards, Leave Travel

Concession/Home Travel Concession, recommendations are on

a continuum and accepted, except for foreign travel to SAARC

countries which shall be deleted – Substantive recommendations

made w.r.t Medical Allowance/Facilities, accepted – As regards

sumptuary allowance, recommendation for increase of 2.25 times

based on the yardstick of annual inflation and increase of points

in the consumer price index, accepted – Committee for Service

Conditions of the District Judiciary (CSCDJ) be constituted

in each High Court for overseeing the implementation of the

recommendations of the SNJPC as approved – Composition,

functions of the Committee and the issues to be considered,

enumerated – States and Union Territories to act in terms of the

directions expeditiously – Disbursements on account of arrears of

salary, pension and allowances due and payable to judicial officers,

retired judicial officers and family pensioners be computed and

paid on or before 29.02.2024 – CSCDJs to monitor compliance

and submit report on or before 07.04.2024. [Paras 20, 24, 27,

29, 32, 34, 37, 40, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 55, 65, 67, 69, 71, 74, 77,

79, 81, 83-87]

Judiciary – District Judiciary – Allowances for judicial

officers, retired judicial officers – Objections raised that

revision of rates/new allowances will result in an increased

financial burden and expenditure; the rules governing the

payment of allowances prescribed by each State for their

own administrative establishment must be followed; and

the benefits which are provided to judicial officers must be

equivalent to those provided to other Government officers:

Held: Submissions urged on behalf of the States have been

considered in several previous judgments of this Court – Judicial

service is an integral and significant component of the functions of

the State and contributes to the constitutional obligation to sustain

the rule of law – State is duty bound to ensure that the conditions

of service, both during the tenure of office and after retirement,

are commensurate with the need to maintain dignified working

conditions for serving judicial officers and in the post-retirement

emoluments made available to former members of the judicial

service – Members of the district judiciary are the first point of

engagement for citizens who are confronted with the need for

dispute resolution – The conditions in which judicial officers across 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 329

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

the country are required to work are arduous – The work of a

judicial officer is not confined merely to the working hours rendered

in the course of judicial duties in the court – That apart, members

of the district judiciary have wide ranging administrative functions

which take place beyond working hours, especially on week-ends

– Further, there is a need to maintain uniformity in the service

conditions of judicial officers across the country – Thus, the plea

that rules of each State must govern pay and allowances, lacks

substance – Judges are not comparable with the administrative

executive – They discharge sovereign state functions and just like

the Council of Ministers or the political executive and their service

is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive

which carries out the decisions of the political executive, judges

are distinct from judicial staff, and are thus comparable with the

political executive and legislature – Wholly inappropriate to equate

judicial service with the service of other officers of the State – The

functions, duties, restrictions and restraints operating during and

after service are entirely distinct for members of the judicial service

– Plea of equivalence rejected yet again. [Paras 13, 17 and 18]

Case Law Cited

All India Judges Association v Union of India [2002]

2 SCR 712 : (2002) 4 SCC 247; All India Judges

Association v Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 720; All India

Judges Association v. Union of India (II) [1993] 1 Suppl.

SCR 749 : (1993) 4 SCC 288; State of Maharashtra v

Tejwant Singh Sandhu SLP(C) 1041 of 2020; Bharat

Kumar Shantilal Thakkar v State of Gujarat & Anr. [2014]

4 SCR 1147 : (2014) 15 SCC 305 – referred to.

List of Acts

Constitution of India.

List of Keywords

District Judiciary; Second National Judicial Pay Commission;

Allowances granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers;

Children Education Allowance; City Compensatory Allowance;

Concurrent Charges Allowance; Conveyance/transport allowance;

Earned Leave Encashment; Electricity and Water Charges; Hill

Area/Tough Location Allowance; Home Orderly/Domestic Help

Allowance; Newspaper and Magazine Allowances; Risk Allowance; 

330 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Robe Allowance; Special Pay for Administrative Work; Telephone

Facility; Transfer Grant; Higher Qualification Allowance; House Rent

Allowances; Furniture and Air Conditioner Allowance; Maintenance;

Leave Travel Concession/Home Travel Concession; Medical

Allowance/Facilities; Sumptuary Allowance, Committee for Service

Conditions of the District Judiciary; Article 142.

Case Arising From

CIVIL ORIGINAL/INHERENT/EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE

JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.643 of 2015.

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

With

SLP (C) Nos.6471-6473 of 2020, 29232 of 2018 and Contempt Petition

(C) Nos.711 of 2022, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 848 and 1338 of 2023 in Writ

Petition (C) No.643 of 2015.

Appearances for Parties

K.Parameshwar (Amicus Curiae), Ms. Kanti, Ms. Arti Gupta, MV

Mukunda, Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Advs.

K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Shailesh Madiyal, B.K. Satija, Dr. Hemant

Gupta, Barun Kumar Sinha, Saurabh Mishra, Amit Anand Tiwari,

A.A.Gs., K N Balgopal, Gurminder Singh, Adv. Gen./Sr. Advs.,

Lenin Singh Hijam, Adv. Gen, Kuldeep Parihar, D.A.G., Gourab

Banerjee, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Wasim Quadri, Jaideep Gupta, Huzefa

Ahmadi, Sunil Kumar, V. Giri, Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sanjay Parikh,

Sr. Advs., Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Dhruv

Sharma, VP Singh, Venkata Supreeth, Gopal Jha, Umesh Kumar

Yadav, Deepak Prakash, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta,

Varun Varma, Md. Apzal Ansari, Milind Kumar, Dr. Reeta Vasishta,

Mohd Akhil, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Rajan Kumar Chourasia,

Ms. Sonali Jain, Chitvan Sinhal, Kartikaya Aggrawal, Abhishek

Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Pashupathi

Nath Razdan, Rushab Aggarwal, Sharath Nambiar, Astik Gupta,

Vaibhav Sabharwal, Japnish Singh Bhatia, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,

Anmol Chandan, Vatsal Joshi, Annirudh Sharma-II, Ishaan Sharma,

Kanu Agarawal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kumar

Verma, Piyush Beriwal, Varun Chugh, Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar,

Sarthak Karol, Harish Pandey, Apoorv Kurup, Shashwat Parihar, Mrs. 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 331

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

Priyadarshini Priya, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Mahesh Thakur, Mrs.

Geetanjali Bedi, Shivamm Sharrma, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek

Mohanty, Gagan Gupta, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Ms. Rucha A.

Pande, Manish M. Veeraragavan, Ms. Gautami Yadav, Ms. Pranjal

Chapalgaonkar, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Kunal Chatterji, Ms.

Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Kshitij Singh, Ms. Nidhi Mittal,

Ms. Aparna Arun, Ms. Anchal, Akhil Hasija, Ms. Gauri Goburdhun,

Ms. Kavita Jha, Rajeev Kumar Jha, Aditeya Bali, P. I. Jose, Anupam

Mishra, James P. Thomas, Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, Amit

Sharma, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Mrs. Shashi

Pathak, Nikhil Goel, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra,

Aniket Patel, Anupam Raina, Sunando Raha, Nikhil Palli, Nishant

Kumar, Krishnanand Pandeya, Dev Pratap Shahi, Raghavendra

S. Srivatsa, T. G. Narayanan Nair, A. Radhakrishnan, Arjun Garg,

Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Niranjan Sahu, Umakant

Misra, Debabrata Dash, Abhijit Pattnaik, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Ashok

Mathur, Mukul Kumar, Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, Sovon

Siddhanta, Saravanan A., J. Vasanthan, K.G. Kannan, Mukesh

K. Giri, Mandaar Mukesh Giri, Santosh Krishnan, Ms. Deepshikha

Sansanwal, Anil Shrivastav, Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar

Bose, Saurabh Tripathi, Manish Kumar, Mahesh Kumar, Sumeer

Sodhi, Nikhilesh Kumar, Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Ms. Devika Khanna,

Mrs. V D Khanna, VMZ Chambers, Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv

Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Ms. Deepanwita

Priyanka, Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Payal Gupta, Shivang Jain, Ms.

Nitikaa Guptha, Ms. Monica Anand Kumar, Ms. Sabarni Som, Ravi

Bakshi, Sandeep Rana, Ms. M. Venmani, S. Gowthaman, Ms. Saima

Firoze, Abhisar Thakral, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Anando Mukherjee,

Shwetank Singh, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar,

Abraham Mathew, Rebin Vincent Gralan, Sunny Choudhary, Sandeep

Sharma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat

Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Raavi Sharma, Ms. Yamini

Singh, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Shrama, Ms. Rajkumari

Divyasana, R. Rajaselvan, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Nirnimesh Dube,

Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms.

Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Shibashish Misra, Karan Sharma,

Ajay Pal, Mohit Siwach, Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms.

Vani Vandana Chhetri, Ms. Zinnea Mehta, Naman Jain, Sabarish

Subramanian, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C Kranthi

Kumar, Naman Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, Ms. V Keerthana, Ms. Tanvi 

332 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Anand, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Sudarshan Singh

Rawat, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, S Sunil,

Sunny Sachin Rawat, Parijat Sinha, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,

Chirag M. Shroff, Aravindh S., Abbas, Ahantham Henry, Ahantham

Rahen Singh, Mohan Singh, Kumar Mihir, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, T.

V. Ratnam, Ankur Kashyap, Joydip Roy, Gopal Jha, Umesh Kumar

Yadav, Shreyash Bhardwaj, Karthik S.D., Uday B. Dube, Deepak

Prakash, Pawan Kr. Dabas, Kamal Singh Bisht, Raneev Dahiya,

Nachiketa Vajpayee, Ms. Divyangna Malik, Ms. Merlyn J. Rachel,

Ms. Vishnu Priya, Vardaan Kapoor, Rahul Lakhera, Rahul Suresh,

Aviral Saxena, Piyush Thanvi, Mohammed Imran, Gautam Narayan,

Ms. Asmita Singh, Harshit Goel, Sujay Jain, K.V. Vibu Prasad,

Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Ritwick Parikh, Karun Sharma, Ms.

Rajkumari Divyasana, R. Rajaselvan, Gopal Jha, Umesh Kumar

Yadav, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Santhosh Kumar Puppala, Ms.

Shireesh Tyagi, Ms. Pranali Tayade Advs. for the appearing parties.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

Contents*

Objections by the Union Government and State

Governments: ........................................................................... 6

Allowances recommended by the SNJPC ..................................13

1 House Building Advance (HBA) ..........................................13

2 Children Education Allowance (CEA) ..................................15

3 City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) .................................16

4 Concurrent Charges Allowance ...........................................17

5 Conveyance/Transport Allowance (TP) ...............................18

6 Dearness Allowance ............................................................ 20

7 Earned Leave Encashment .................................................20

8 Electricity and Water Charges .............................................21

9 Higher Qualification Allowance ............................................22

10 Hill Area/Tough Location Allowance ....................................24

* Ed. Note : Pagination is as per the original judgment.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 333

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

11 Home Orderly/Domestic Help Allowance ............................ 25

12 House Rent Allowance and Residential Quarters ............... 26

13 Leave Travel Concession(LTC)/Home Travel

Concession (HTC) ................................................................31

14 Medical Allowance/Medical Facilities ..................................33

Fixed Allowance ................................................................... 36

Medical Facilities and Reimbursement ...............................36

15 Newspaper and Magazine Allowances ...............................39

16 Risk Allowance .................................................................... 40

17 Robe Allowance ................................................................... 40

18 Special Pay for Administrative Work ...................................41

19 Sumptuary Allowance .......................................................... 42

20 Telephone Facility ................................................................ 44

21 Transfer Grant ..................................................................... 46

Institutionalization ........................................................................47

1. By its orders dated 27 July 2022, 5 April 2023 and 19 May 2023, this

Court has accepted the recommendations of the Second National

Judicial Pay Commission1

, chaired by Justice P V Reddy, former

Judge of this Court of India on the revision of pay and pension for

judicial officers.

2. The abovementioned orders have delineated inter alia the history

of the constitution of the SNJPC, and the principles underlying

judicial pay, allowances and pensions. The contents of the earlier

orders shall not be repeated here. This judgment pertains to the

allowances which have been granted to judicial officers and retired

judicial officers by the SNJPC. At this stage, it would be necessary

to note that save and except for three allowances, where there was

a modification, the allowances recommended by the First National

Judicial Pay Commission known as the Shetty Commission were

affirmed by this Court in All India Judges Association v Union of

India2

. Thereafter, all allowances which were recommended by the

1 “SNJPC”

2 (2002) 4 SCC 247

334 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

subsequent pay commission, namely the Judicial Pay Commission3

called the Justice Padmanabhan Committee were accepted by this

Court in its decision reported as All India Judges Association v

Union of India4

.

3. Besides Mr K Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae, all the State governments

and Union Territories have been given an opportunity to furnish their

objections to the allowances, as proposed by the SNJPC. Objections

have been filed on the record of this Court.

4. In the course of hearing, the following counsel have appeared on

behalf of the States, or as the case may be, the Associations of

Judges :

S. No. Name of the counsel Appearing for

1 Mr Gaurab Banerji, Sr. Adv. AIJA

2 Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv High Court at Calcutta

3 Mr Gopal Jha, Adv All India Retired Judges

Association

4 Ms Gautami Yadav, Adv Maharashtra State Judges

Association

5 Mr Sunny Choudhary Madhya Pradesh

6 Mr Mukesh Kumar Verma Andaman & Nicobar

7 MrJoydip Roy, Adv. All India Judges Association

8 Ms Madhumita Bhattacharjee West Bengal

9 Mr Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Uttar Pradesh

10 Mr Shuvodeep Roy Assam and Tripura

11 Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha Bihar

12 Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG Tamil Nadu

13 Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv Tamil Nadu

14 Mr. Karan Sharma, Adv. Punjab

15 Dr Manish Singhvi, Sr, Adv Rajasthan

16 Mr V N Raghupathy, Adv Karnataka

17 Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv Gujarat

18 Mr. Sriharsha Pichara, Adv Telangana

3 “JPC”

4 (2010) 14 SCC 720

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 335

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

19 Mr Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar Manipur

20 Ms K Enatoli Sema Nagaland

21 Ravi Bakshi, Adv Himachal Pradesh

22 Mr Alim Anvar, Adv. Kerala

23 Mr Amit Kumar, AAG Meghalaya

24 Mr Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv Uttarakhand

25 Mr Deepak Prakash, Adv Kerala Judicial Officers

Association.

5. In addition, we have had the benefit of considering intervention

applications by the State of Maharashtra.

6. The Amicus Curiae has tendered a note summarizing the position.

The SNJPC considered a total of twenty-one allowances in its report.

These allowances are tabulated below:

1. House Building Advance 12. House Rent Allowance

a. Residential Quarters

b. HRA

c. Furniture &

Air Conditioner

Allowance

d. Maintenance

e. Guest House

2. Children Education Allowance 13. Leave Travel Concession/

Home Travel Concession

3. City Compensatory Allowance 14. 14. Medical Allowance

4. Concurrent Charge allowance 15. Newspaper and Magazine

Allowance

5. Conveyance/Transport Allowance 16. Risk Allowance

6. Dearness Allowance 17. Robe Allowance

7. Earned leave encashment 18. Special Pay for

Administrative Work

8. Electricity and water charges 19. Sumptuary Allowance

9. Higher Qualification 20. Telephone Facility

10. Hill area/ Tough Location

Allowance

21. Transfer Grant

11. Home orderly/Domestic Help

Allowance

336 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

7. Among the allowances which have been recommended by the SNJPC,

two new allowances are proposed while two additional components

are introduced to an additional allowance, namely :

(i) Children Education Allowance (Serial No 2 in the tabulation);

(ii) A Furniture and Air conditioner allowance and maintenance

as a part of the House Rent Allowance (Serial Nos 12C and

12D); and

(iii) Risk Allowance (Serial No 16 of the tabulation).

8. The SNJPC has recommended that the City Compensatory Allowance

(Serial No 3 of the above tabulation) should be discontinued. In respect

of the Robe Allowance (Serial No 17), the SNJPC recommended

that such a demand would not be entertained by the next JPC.

Twelve out of the twenty-one allowances form the subject matter of a

recommendation either by the Sixth or, as the case may be, Seventh

Central Pay Commission either on the same or on revised rates.

9. At the outset, it needs to be clarified that since the SNJPC has

proposed a revision of the existing rates as applicable, the States/

Union Territories shall continue to pay the allowances at the rates

which were applicable in respect of each allowance where the SNJPC

has recommended that the revised rates shall come into effect later

than 1 January 2016.

Objections by the Union Government and State Governments:

10. Before we deal with each individual allowance, it would be necessary

to record that, broadly speaking, the objections which have been

raised by the States, Union Territories and the Union Government

can be classified into three categories :

(a) The revision of rates or, as the case may be, the new allowances

will result in an increased financial burden and expenditure;

(b) The rules governing the payment of allowances prescribed by

each State for their own administrative establishment must be

followed; and

(c) the benefits which are provided to judicial officers must be

equivalent to those provided to other Government officers.

11. The submissions urged on behalf of the States have been considered

in several previous judgments of this Court, more specifically in relation

to the recommendations of the SNJPC itself. On the aspect of the 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 337

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

increased financial burden and additional expenditure, this Court, in

its judgment dated 5 April 2023, relied on the earlier decision in the

All India Judges Associationv.Union of India (II)5

 andheld that

contentions regarding the financial implications of the directions are

liable to be rejected when the directions stem from the obligation

of the state. In other words, a plea of financial burden cannot be

raised to resist mandatory duties of the state. Providing necessary

service conditions for the effective discharge of judicial functions

is one such duty. The observations in that regard are contained in

paragraph 19 of the judgment dated 05 April 20236

.

12. The same objection was dealt with in the subsequent judgment of

this Court dated 19 May 2023 at paragraph 26.7

 The Court noted

that the issue of financial burden has been examined in these very

proceedings on at least three occasions and that this Court had

earlier expressed the hope that it will not be re-agitated in view of

All India Judges Association vs Union of India (II)8

.

13. Judicial service is an integral and significant component of the

functions of the State and contributes to the constitutional obligation to

sustain the rule of law. Judicial service is distinct in its characteristics

and in terms of the responsibilities which are cast upon the officers

of the District Judiciary to render objective dispensation of justice

5 (1993) 4 SCC 288.

6 19. The directions of this court applying a uniform multiplier and the corresponding financial implications

cannot be considered as excessive in view of the information extracted above. In All India Judges Associationv. Union of India (II), this court has earlier held that additional financial burden cannot be a

ground for review:

“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 caliber of the persons appointed

to administer it are not of different grades in different States. Such contentions are illsuited to the issues involved in the present case.”

(emphasis supplied)

7 26. The submission of the States that there is a paucity of financial resources must be examined from

this aspect of the matter. The States and the Union have repeatedly stated that the burden on the financial resources of the States/Union due to the Report of the SNJPC is significant and therefore the Report

cannot be implemented. Without the doctrine of inherent powers, any de-funding of the Judiciary cannot

be repelled.

8 (1993) 4 SCC 288. 

338 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

to citizens. The State is duty bound to ensure that the conditions

of service, both during the tenure of office and after retirement, are

commensurate with the need to maintain dignified working conditions

for serving judicial officers and in the post-retirement emoluments

made available to former members of the judicial service. Members of

the district judiciary are the first point of engagement for citizens who

are confronted with the need for dispute resolution. The conditions

in which judicial officers across the country are required to work

arearduous. The work of a judicial officer is not confined merely to

the working hours rendered in the course of judicial duties in the

court. Every judicial officer is required to work both before and after

the court working hours. The judicial work of each day requires

preparation before cases are called out. A judicial officer continues to

work on cases which may have been dealt with in court, in terms of

preparing the judgment and attending to other administrative aspects

of the judicial record. That apart, members of the district judiciary

have wide ranging administrative functions which take place beyond

working hours, especially on week-ends including the discharge of

numerous duties in relation to prison establishments, juvenile justice

institutions, legal service camps and in general, work associated with

the Legal Services Act 1987.

14. The work of a Judge cannot be assessed solely in terms of their

duties during court working hours. The State is under an affirmative

obligation to ensure dignified conditions of work for its judicial officers

and it cannot raise the defense of an increase in financial burden or

expenditure. Judicial officers spend the largest part of their working

life in service of the institution. The nature of the office often renders

the incumbent incapacitated in availing of opportunities for legal work

which may otherwise be available to a member of the Bar. That

furnishes an additional reason why post-retirement, it is necessary for

the State to ensure that judicial officers are able to live in conditions

of human dignity. It needs to be emphasized that providing for judges,

both during their tenure and upon retirement, is correlated with

the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence, which is

necessary to preserve the faith and confidence of common citizens

in the rule of law, can be ensured and enhanced only so long as

judges are able to lead their life with a sense of financial dignity.

The conditions of service while a judge is in service must ensure a

dignified existence. The post-retirement conditions of service have

a crucial bearing on the dignity and independence of the office of

a judge and how it is perceived by the society. If the service of 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 339

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

the judiciary is to be a viable career option so as to attract talent,

conditions of service, both for working and retired officers, must offer

security and dignity.

15. As we shall indicate in the course of this judgment, the allowances

which have been provided by the SNJPC are basic allowances, most

of which rank on the same scale as what has been made available

to officers discharging executive functions in the AllIndia Services. It

is a matter of grave concern that though officers in the other services

have availed of a revision of their conditions of service as far back as

01 January 2016, similar issues pertaining to judicial officers are still

awaiting a final decision eight years thereafter. Judges have retired

from service. The family pensioners of those who have passed away

are awaiting resolution as well.

16. The second objection which has been raised on behalf of the States

is that the rules of the particular State must be followed in each

instance. This has again been dealt with in the judgment of this

Court dated 19 May 2023. The relevant extract is footnoted below.9

17. This Court has categorically held that there is a need to maintain

uniformity in the service conditions of judicial officers across the

country. Thus, the plea that rules of each State must govern pay

and allowances, lacks substance.

18. The third objection as to the equivalence between judicial officers

and other Government officers has been elaborately analyzed

in paragraph 1410 of the judgment dated 05 April 2023 and in

9 22. India has a unified judiciary under the scheme of the Constitution. A unified judiciary necessarily

entails that the service conditions of judges of one state are equivalent to similar posts of judges of other

states. The purpose of this constitutional scheme is to ensure that the judicial system is uniform, effective

and efficient in its functioning. Efficient functioning necessarily requires judges of caliber and capacity to

be provided with the right incentives and promotion opportunities to maintain the high level of functioning

of the judiciary.

23 This Court in All India Judges Association (II) has noted the position of law and observed that uniform

designations and hierarchy, with uniform service conditions are unavoidable necessary consequences.

It was held:

 “14. … Secondly, the judiciary in this country is a unified institution judicially

though not administratively.Hence uniform designations and hierarchy, with uniform service conditions are unavoidable necessary consequences. ….”

10 14. In view of the above discussion, the issue is whether there is any compelling need to reduce the

quantum of increase proposed by applying a lower multiplier so as to marginally reduce the gap between

entry level IAS officers (in Junior and Senior time scales) and Judicial Officers at the first two levels (Civil

Judge, Junior and Senior Divisions). Such an exercise is not warranted for more than one reason. Firstly,

the initial starting pay must be such as to offer an incentive to talented youngsters to join judicial service.

Secondly, the application of a multiplier/ factor less than 2.81 would result in a deviation from the principle adopted by SNJPC that the extent of increase of pay of judicial officers must be commensurate with 

340 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

paragraphs 24, 2911 of the judgment dated 19 May 2023. Judges are

the increase in the pay of High Court judges. This principle has been accepted by this Court by approving

the recommendations of the SNJPC. Therefore, there is no valid reason to depart from the principle applied by JPC that the pay of judicial officers should be higher when compared to All India Service Officers

of the corresponding rank. This principle has been approved by this Court in AIJA (2002).….. Thirdly, in

All India Judges Association (II) v. Union of India, this court rejected the comparison of service conditions of the judiciary with that of the administrative executive:

“7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated in the judgment under

review while dealing with the same contentions raised there. We cannot however, help

observing that the failure to realize the distinction between the judicial service and the

other services is at the bottom of the hostility displayed by the review petitioners to

the directions given in the judgment. The judicial service is not service in the sense

of ‘employment’. The Judges are not employees. As members of the judiciary, they

exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They are holders of public offices

in the same way as the members of the council of ministers and the members of

the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such as ours, 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 Legislators 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 USA, 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 a par with the members of the

judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally.”

(emphasis supplied)

Fourthly, the argument that a uniform IoR would equate the district courts with constitutional courts

is erroneous. A uniform multiplier is used for a uniform increment in pay and not for the purpose of

uniform pay in itself. All Judges across the hierarchy of courts discharge the same essential function of

adjudicating disputes impartially and independently. Thus, it would not be appropriate to apply graded

IoR when SNJPC has chosen to uniformly apply the multiplier.

11 24. Separation of powers demands that the officers of the Judiciary be treated separately and distinct

from the staff of the legislative and executive wings. It must be remembered the judges are not employees of the State but are holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial power. In that

sense, they are only comparable to members of the legislature and ministers in the executive.

Parity, thus, cannot be claimed between staff of the legislative wing and executive wing with officers of the judicial wing. This Court in All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India, explained the

distinction and held that those who exercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators

and the Judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing their

decisions. Thus, there cannot be any objection that judicial officers receive pay which is not at

par with executive staff. In this context, it may also be remembered that Article 50 of the Constitution

directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the Executive.

29. This Court in its Review Order dated 05.04.2023 has explained this position in the following words:

“7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated in the judgment under review while dealing with the same contentions raised there. We cannot however, help

observing that the failure to realize the distinction between the judicial service

and the other services is at the bottom of the hostility displayed by the review

petitioners to the directions given in the judgment. The judicial service is not service in the sense of ‘employment’. The Judges are not employees. As members

of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 341

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

not comparable with the administrative executive. They discharge

sovereign state functions and just like the Council of Ministers or the

political executive and their service is different from the secretarial

staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of

the political executive, judges are distinct from judicial staff, and are

thus comparable with the political executive and legislature. It would

be wholly inappropriate to equate judicial service with the service

of other officers of the State. The functions, duties, restrictions and

restraints operating during and after service are entirely distinct for

members of the judicial service. Consequently, the plea of equivalence

has been consistently rejected in the judgments of this Court. We

affirmatively do so again.

Allowances recommended by the SNJPC

19. We will now deal with each of the allowances as recommended by

the SNJPC.

1. House Building Advance (HBA)

20. At the outset, it needs to be noted that the HBA forms a subject

matter of the recommendations of the Seventh CPC, FNJPC, JPC

and now the SNJPC. The SNJPC has recommended that :

(i) HBA shall be made available to judicial officers in terms of the

House Building Advance Rules, 2017; and

(ii) HBA shall be available to judicial officers also for the purchase

of a ready built house from private individuals subject to such

are holders of public offices in the same way as the members of the council of

ministers and the members of the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy

such as ours, 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 Legislators 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 USA, 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 a par with

the members of the judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally.”

(emphasis supplied)

342 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

safeguards as may be prescribed by the State Government in

consultation with their respective High Courts.

21. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India has

issued an Office Memorandum12 dated 9 November 2017 providing

for the payment of HBA. The recommendations of the SNJPC are

based on the terms of this OM. However para 2(v) of the OM of the

Union Government contains the following stipulation :

“5. Outright purchase of a new ready-built house flat

from Housing Boards, Development Authorities and other

statutory or semi-Government bodies and from registered

builders i.e., registered private builders, architects house

building societies, etc. but not from private individuals.”

22. The above clause in the OM indicates that the HBA can be availed

of for the outright purchase of a new or ready built house or flat from

public bodies as well as from registered private builders, architects

and societies but not from private individuals. The SNJPC, in the

course of its recommendations has observed as follows :

“6. The Commission having given its consideration to the

same is of the view that the HBA advance to the Judicial

Officers shall be in terms of HBA Rules, 2017. However,

the expression “but not from private individual” in Clause

2(v) needs to be suitably modified. It is quite possible

that an individual may have purchased the house from

the institutions/societies mentioned in the O.M. and if he

subsequently intends to sell it and a Judicial Officer is

inclined to purchase it. In such an event, the HBA may not

be available to the Judicial Officer if Clause 2(v) is strictly

construed. Further, quite often the Government servants/

officials as well as Judicial Officers would prefer to have

ready built house and mere fact that the seller is a private

individual should not be a good reason to deny the HBA

on the terms set out in the Rules. It may be noted from

O.M. that from registered private builders, architects, house

building societies etc. purchase by a private individual is

allowed. There is no good reason for exclusion of purchase

12 “OM”

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 343

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

from private individuals. However, suitable safeguards to

check any overestimation in the case of purchases from

private individual can be evolved by the State Government

in consultation with the High Court. “

23. The SNJPC has basically adopted the same financials as incorporated

in the OM of the Union Government with the modification that the

purchase from a private individual may also be permitted.

24. We are inclined to accept the modification particularly since the State

Governments have been permitted to evolve suitable safeguards,

to check any over estimation in case of a purchase from private

individuals, in consultation with the High Court to ensure that there is

not delay in implementation, we direct that the Committee constituted

in terms of the directions issued in a later part of this judgment

under the authority of every High Court shall sort out any difficulties

which may arise in the implementation of the recommendations of

the SNJPC as accepted by the present order.

25. We accordingly accept the recommendations of the SNJPC on the

adoption of HBA.

2. Children Education Allowance (CEA)

26. The SNJPC has recommended the payment of the allowance with

effect from academic year 2019-2020. The recommendation by

the SNJPC on the payment of the CEA is in accordance with the

recommendations of the Seventh CPC for Central Government

employees which is in the following terms :

(a) Rs 2,250 per month as CEA and Rs 6,750 per month as hostel

subsidy for two children up to Class 12;

(b) For children with special needs, the reimbursement would be

at double the rate stated in (a);

(c) When the DA increases by 50%, the allowances and subsidy

shall increase by 25%; and

(d) The rights of officers who are already receiving this benefit will

not be adversely affected by the recommendation.

27. While arriving at the above rates for the CEA, the SNJPC has

considered the fact that the judicial service has a pan India character. 

344 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

In making the recommendation, the SNJPC has based the payment

of the allowance of the CEA in terms of the OM dated 16 August

2017 of the Union Government in the Department of Personnel

and Training. The payment of the allowance as recommended shall

accordingly stand approved.

3. City Compensatory Allowance (CCA)

28. While recommending that the CCA be discontinued prospectively

on the ground that it is not being paid to High Court or Supreme

Court Judges after the Seventh CPC recommendations, the SNJPC

has also directed that no recovery shall be effected on the amount

already paid on account of the allowance.

29. We approve both the recommendation for discontinuation and the

recommendation that no recovery shall be made.

4. Concurrent Charges Allowance

30. The SNJPC has observed that concurrent charge allowance is payable

to officers who are required to hold full charge of the duties of equal

or higher responsibilities in addition to the duties of their own post.

The following recommendations were made by the FNJPC:

“a) The charge allowance be paid to the Judicial Officer when

he is placed in charge of another Court continuously

beyond the period of 10 working days and if he performs

appreciable judicial work of that Court;

AND

b) The charge allowance be paid to such Judicial Officer at

10% of the minimum of the time scale of the additional

post held.”

31. The SNJPC has made a similar recommendation for the payment

of a like allowance where a judicial officer was placed in charge of

another court continuously beyond a period of ten working days. The

SNJPC was of the view that the Concurrent Charge Allowance with

a ceiling @ 10% of the minimum of the scale of the additional post

held beyond a period of ten working days is reasonable and does

not require any upward revision. Moreover, it opined that with the 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 345

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

revision of pay, the quantum of allowance at the rate of 10% is an

adequate sum. The SNJPC observed that the actual amount payable

within the ceiling of 10% depends upon the number of days worked,

the quantum of judicial work turned out and the administrative work

handled. Moreover, as was being done earlier, the High Courts would

decide the amount payable having regard to the relevant factors. The

SNJPC, however, recommended that the parameter of “appreciable

judicial work” of the FNJPCis vague and involves a cumbersome

process. That criterion has accordingly been dispensed with. The

summary of the recommendations of SNJPC in that regard is set

out below:

“1. The concurrent charge allowance to be available maximum

at the rate of 10% of the minimum of the scale of the

additional post held beyond a period of ten working days.

2. No upward revision in the percentage of the Concurrent

Charge allowance.

3. High Court to decide the Concurrent Charge allowance to

be available to the Officer within the ceiling of 10% on the

basis of the number of days worked, the quantum of judicial

work turned out and the administrative work handled.

4. The criterion laid down by FNJPC be dispensed with and

there shall not be any insistence on the performance of

‘appreciable judicial work’ of the Court concerned. “

32. The recommendations made by the SNJPC is accordingly accepted.

5. Conveyance/Transport Allowance (TP)

33. As regards Conveyance/Transport Allowance, the SNJPC made the

following recommendations:

(a) The pool car service for various judicial officers, as recommended

by FNJPC, must be dispensed with. However, if the officers wish,

they can forgo the transport allowance and continue with the

pool car service for a period of one year or so;

(b) The transport allowance at the rate of Rs 10,000 per month

be given to those judicial officers who own the car so as to 

346 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

cover the cost of maintenance and driver’s salary and this will

be increased to Rs 13,500 from 01.01.2021. The transport

allowance would be payable at a reduced rate of Rs 4,000 per

month in those States where there is an existing practice of

allocating a driving-knowing office attendant/peon to the officer;

(c) In addition to the transport allowance, there should be a

reimbursement of the cost of 100 litres of petrol/diesel in cities

and 75 litres of petrol/diesel in other areas;

(d) After the recommendations of FNJPC, the following judicial

functionaries were eligible for official vehicles, namely, Principal

District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Principal Judge of City Civil Court and Principal

Judge of Small Causes Court. In addition to these functionaries,

three more judicial functionaries would be eligible for official

vehicles, namely, Director of the Judicial Academy/Judicial

Training Institute, Principal Judge of the Family Courts and

Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority. The High

Courts were permitted to prune down the list depending upon

the financial capacity of the State;

(e) The quantum of petrol/diesel for official cars would be raised to

the actual consumption for official purposes as certified by the

concerned official and supported by a log book, which would

be maintained. The judicial officers using official cars may be

permitted to use them for private purposes to the extent of 300

kms per month;

(f) The judicial officers shall be permitted to exhibit a sticker at their

option on the lower left side of the windscreen with inscription

‘Judge’ printed in moderately sized letters; and

(g) Soft loan facilities to the extent of Rs ten lakhs at nominal interest

for the purchase of car shall be extended to the judicial officers.

34. The report of the SNJPC in regard to the payment of conveyance/

transport allowance is accepted. All concerned authorities shall take

steps for the purpose of implementing the recommendations.

6. Dearness Allowance

35. By its order dated 19 May 2023, this Court has accepted the

recommendation of the SNJPC on dearness allowance.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 347

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

7. Earned Leave Encashment

36. The SNJPC has recommended that the judicial officers be entitled

to earned leave encashment in the following manner:

“9. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. No enhancement in the maximum limit of 300 days

leave encashment at the time of retirement.

2. A judicial officer shall be entitled to encash :

(a) 10 days earned leave while availing LTC subject

to maximum 60 days – 10 at a time upto six

occasions during the entire service.

(b) 30 days in a block of two years.

(c) S.No.(a) and (b) shall be in addition to the right

of the Judicial Officers to encashupto 300 days

EL at the time of retirement.

3. In case of officers who have retired and while granting

leave encashment at the time of retirement, the leave

encashment availed during service stand adjusted

shall be paid the amount of the so adjusted earned

leave, at the time of retirement as explained in the

example above, within a period of three months from

the date of acceptance of the report.”

37. The report submitted by the SNJPC in regard to the earned leave

encashment is accepted.

8. Electricity and Water Charges

38. The SNJPC has made the following recommendations:

“1. No change in the percentage of reimbursement. The 50%

of reimbursement formula recommended by FNJPC and

reiterated by the JPC shall continue.

2. The ceiling in terms of units of electricity and the quantity

of water consumed shall be as follows:

Designation Electricity Units Water Quantity

District Judges 8000 units per annum 420 Kls per annum

Civil Judges 6000 units per annum 336 Kls per annum

348 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

3. Reimbursement of electricity and water charges shall be on

the quarterly basis on production of proof of payment of the

billed amount.

4. This allowance shall be available at the enhanced rates w.e.f.

01.01.2020.”

39. The SNJPC duly considered the objections. While some High

Courts suggested the continuance of the existing system of 50%

reimbursement, others suggested reimbursement at 75%, while still

others at 100%. The High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand

suggested the fixation of a ceiling on the number of units. The Union

of India and almost all States except Jharkhand and Kerala have

accepted the recommendation of SNJPC. The State of Jharkhand

recommended a ceiling of Rs 1,250 per month for electricity and

water charges.

40. Having considered the recommendation, we are of the view that it

should be accepted and it is ordered accordingly.

9. Higher Qualification Allowance

41. The SNJPC noted that for acquiring higher qualifications in law,

specialized study of the subjects concerned is involved and the

acquisition of such qualifications in the nature of a post graduate or

doctoral degree will improve the quality of work of a judicial officer.

The recommendations of the SNJPC are summarized below:

“1. The Judicial Officers shall be granted three advance

increments for acquiring higher qualification i.e. postgraduation in law and one more advance increment if he

acquires Doctorate in Law.

2. The advance increments once granted for post-graduation

degree or Doctorate in law shall not be again granted if,

in future, the officer acquires post graduate or Doctorate

degree in any other subject.

3. The advance increments shall be available to the officer

who had acquired the post-graduation degree or Doctorate

either before recruitment or at any time subsequent thereto

while in service.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 349

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

4. The advance increments shall be granted from the date

of initial recruitment, if the officer has already acquired the

post-graduation degree or Doctorate and from the date

of acquiring the post-graduation or Doctorate degree, if

acquired after joining the service.

5. The advance increments shall be made available to the

officers only and only if the higher qualification has been

acquired through regular studies (full time or part time)

and not through distant learning programmes.

6. The benefit of advance increments shall not be extended

at the ACP stage (ACP I or II). However, the advance

increment shall be available when the Officer is promoted

from Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) to Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and from

Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) to District Judge cadre.

7. The advance increments shall be available in the District

Judge Cadre from District Judge (Entry Level) to District

Judge (Selection Grade) and from District Judge (Selection

Grade) to District Judge (Super Time Scale).

8. The advance increments for all practical purposes shall be

part of salary and Dearness Allowance shall be available

on the same.”

42. The recommendation made by the SNJPC that the benefit of advance

increment shall not be extended at the ACP stage appears to be

covered by the order of this Court dated 30 September 2022 in State

of Maharashtra v Tejwant Singh Sandhu13 where this Court held:

“The short question which is posed for consideration of this

Court is whether the judicial officers who have acquired

the the degree of LL.M. are entitled to the benefit of an

additional increment? It is the case on behalf of the State

that once the concerned Judicial Officer is getting the

benefit of ACP, is not entitled to the additional increment on

acquiring the additional qualification of LL.M. The aforesaid

cannot be accepted. The grant of ACP has nothing to

do with the benefit of additional increment on acquiring

13 SLP(C) 1041 of 2020

350 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

theadditional qualification like LL.M. Even otherwise, the

issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in

Bharat Kumar Shantilal Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat &

Anr. (2014)15 SCC 305.

In view of the above, there is no substance in the present

Special Leave Petition and the same deserves to be

dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.”

43. There is no justification for denying the benefit of advance increments

at the ACP stage. The object and purpose of ACP is to prevent

stagnation. On the other hand, the object and purpose of advance

increments for acquiring higher qualifications is to improve judicial

performance. Hence, the restrictive condition imposed by the

SNJPC in regard to non-extension of advance increments at the

ACP stage is not accepted. The advance increments for acquiring

higher qualifications shall also be made available to officers who

have acquired their degrees through distance learning programmes.

44. Subject to the above clarifications, the recommendation of the

SNJPC is accepted.

10. Hill Area/Tough Location Allowance

45. The SNJPC has made the following recommendations:

“1. Hill Area/Tough Location Allowance @Rs.5000/- per month

shall be paid to the Judicial Officers posted in hill areas/

tough locations.

2. More beneficial provision, if any, already applicable to the

officials of the State/UT shall be extended to the Judicial

officers.

3. In case of doubt, whether a particular area can be

considered to be hilly or tough location area, decision of

the High Court shall be followed in relation to the Judicial

officers.

4. This allowance shall be available w.e.f. 01.01.2016.”

46. The recommendation is accepted. All High Courts are directed to

specify the areas classifiable as hill areas/tough locations within a

period of two months from the date of this order.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 351

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

11. Home Orderly/Domestic Help Allowance

47. The SNJPC has made the following recommendations:

“1. The Home-cum-office orderly allowance shall be available

to the serving Judicial officers at the following rates :

District Judges : minimum wages for one unskilled

worker in the concerned State/UT subject to minimum of

Rs.10,000/- per month

Civil Judges : 60% of the minimum wages for one unskilled

worker in the concerned State/UT subject to minimum of

Rs.7,500/- per month.

2. Judicial officers getting higher allowance on this account

by virtue of the orders issued by some States, they may

continue to draw the same.

3. The allowance at the aforesaid rates shall be available

to the Judicial Officers w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in States where

they are getting the same prior to 01.01.2016 and in other

cases, w.e.f. 01.01.2020.

4. The Judicial officers provided with Group D employee as

an Attender/Peon/office subordinate for residential duties

may exercise their option either to continue with the

present system and forego the allowance that has been

recommended or to claim the allowance instead of availing

the services of the official Attender/Peon.

5(a). The payment of home orderly allowance should not result

in discontinuance of practice, if any, of deputing the Office

Peons/Attenders or other Group D employee during nights

at the residences of (i) Magistrates who are called upon

to attend the Judicial work at times during night times. (ii)

the Office Peon/Attender or such other Group D employee

deputed for night duty at the residence of Judicial officer

living in the areas generally considered to be disturbed

or security risk areas or outsourced security guards to

be deployed in such areas and (iii) such personnel can

also be deputed to the residence of Principal District

Judge or equivalent rank officer having administrative

responsibilities.

352 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(b) The deployment of Peons/Attenders for such residential

duties shall be subject to the availability of Group D/Class

IV personnel and without detriment to Court related duties.

6. Drawing up a panel of Home Orderlies/residential

attendants/sevaks appointed on consolidated salary

equivalent to minimum wages and allotting them to the

Judicial officers (as suggested by the Madras High Court)

can be thought of as an alternative subject to the decision

taken in this regard by the concerned High Court. However,

in such a case, Home Orderly allowance cannot be claimed.

7a. Domestic Help Allowance to the pensioners and family

pensioners shall be available at the following rates from

01.01.2016 :

Pensioner : Rs.9,000/- per month

Family pensioners : Rs.7,500/- per month

7b. This allowance shall stand increased by 30% on completion

of five years from 01.01.2016 that is, w.e.f. 01.01.2021.

8. The allowance shall be drawn on the self certification of

the Judicial Officer/Pensioner/Family Pensioner.”

48. We accept the recommendations of the SNJPC.

12. House Rent Allowance and Residential Quarters

49. The allowance under the above head has the following components:

(a) Residential Quarters:

The SNJPC took note of the fact that there is a dearth of residential

government quarters and that securing suitable accommodation has

become an acute problem for judicial officers. The SNJPC made the

following recommendations:

1. The State Governments should urgently take up construction

of the residential quarters for the Judicial Officers and the

progress of construction be monitored by this Court.

2. The Judicial Officer is to be provided accommodation or

requisitioned private accommodation within one month of

taking charge of the post.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 353

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

3. If the Judicial Officer is not provided with the government

accommodation or requisitioned private accommodation

within one month, then the Judicial Officer may secure

private accommodation and should be paid rent in the

following terms:

a. If the rent of the private accommodation is within the

admissible house rent allowance mentioned below, no

fixation of rent is required. But the concerned Judicial

Officer has to certify the actual rent being paid.

b. If the rent of the private accommodation is more

than permissible house rent allowance, the rent

shall be assessed by Principal District Judge with

the assistance of PWD/R&B officials.

c. If the difference between the permissible house rent

allowance and the rent assessed is more than 15%

and Principal District Judge may seek approval of

High Court for payment of the said amount unless

the officer is ready to pay the differential cost.

4. The minimum plinth area for the residential accommodation

shall be 2500 sq. ft. for District Judge and 2000 sq. ft. for

Civil Judge. However, The High Court administration have

the discretion to sanction the design with higher plinth area.

(b) House Rent Allowance

The SNJPC noticed that different rates of HRA are prevalent in

different cities. Taking all aspects into account, the SNJPC was of

the view that the Central Government notified rates may be adopted

by the States and made the following recommendations:

(i) Judicial officers who are allotted official quarters for residence

shall not be entitled to HRA;

(ii) Judicial officers residing in their own houses, including the house

of a parent or spouse, shall also be entitled for the recommended

HRA with effect from 01.01.2016 after obtaining permission from

the High Court to reside in their own house and judicial officers

already residing in hired accommodation will be entitled to the

recommended HRA with effect from 01.01.2020, subject to the

actual rent paid within the said ceiling;

354 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(iii) The Office of the Principal District Judge or equivalent shall

pay rent directly to the landlord, in which case, the officer is

not eligible to draw HRA; and

(iv) The SNJPC rates of HRA should be applicable to all Judicial

Officers as per the notification dated 07.07.2017 which was

issued after the VIIth Central Pay Commission (CPC) by the

Central Government:

“ Rates of HRA/pm as % of basic pay

X 24%

Y 16%

Z 8%

However, the minimum rates prescribed are 5400/-, 3600/- and

1800/- respectively. And the rate will be changed in accordance with

the change in Dearness Allowance in the following terms:

Classification of

Cities

Rates of HRA/pm as % of

basic pay

When DA

crosses

X 27% 25%

30% 50%

Y 18% 25%

20% 50%

Z 9% 25%

10% 50%

‘Z’ Category is unclassified at present and the High Court is at liberty

to upgrade and add the cities in different classes.”

(c) Furniture and Air Conditioner Allowance

The SNJPC was apprised of the fact that some furniture is provided to

the judicial officers in certain places, but there is a lack of uniformity.

The SNJPC made the following recommendations:

“4. Furniture grant of Rs.1.25 lakhs every five years shall

be provided to the Judicial Officer subject to production

of proof of purchase by the Judicial Officer. Household

electrical appliances can also be purchased by availing

of the said grant. The Officers having not less than two 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 355

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

years of service will also be eligible for this allowance. The

option to purchase the furniture being used by the officer

at the depreciated rate shall be available at the time of

fresh grant or retirement.

4.1 Apart from the furniture grant, one air-conditioner shall be

provided at the residence of every Judicial Officer once

in every five years.”

(d) Residential quarters - maintenance

In order to obviate the problems faced by judicial officers in securing

services of electricians, plumber, carpenters, sanitary workers and

masons and bearing in mind that the Public Works Department,

which is in-charge of maintenance, does not have sufficient funds

to carry out the work, the SNJPC recommended that an amount of

Rs Ten lakhs be made available to each Principal District Judge

on the basis of a proposal sent by the Registry of the High Court

for the proper maintenance of the residential quarters and that the

Government must sanction the amount proposed within two months

from the date of the receipt of their proposal.

(e) Guest House/Transit Accommodation

The SNJPC has been in agreement with the suggestions made

by the Associations that guest house facility should be provided

exclusively for judicial officers bearing in mind the problem faced in

securing accommodation in State guest houses. While the SNJPC

was aware that it is not possible to construct guest houses in all

districts, it emphasized the need to have a guest house-cum-transit

accommodation at least in cities and major towns. In that regard,

the following recommendations were made:

“17.2 The Commission does not expect that the Guest

houses for the Judiciary should be constructed in

all Dist. Headquarters irrespective of the size of the

District. The travails of the Judicial Officers in securing

suitable accommodation for stay is undeniable at

least in the cities and major important towns. There

is every need to construct Guest houses-cum-transit

homes. One wing can be earmarked as a transit home

where the transferred Officer can stay initially for a 

356 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

few weeks till s(he) finds residential accommodation –

Official or private. The Guest house-cum-transit home

facility is a long felt need of the Judicial Officers. The

Commission recommends that the Guest houses/transit

homes shall be constructed in a phased manner by

the Governments concerned. The officials concerned

shall act in coordination with the Registry of the High

Court to identify the places. The details such as number

and size of rooms and the amenities shall be finalized

after mutual discussion. As regards the first phase of

such construction, the State Governments/UTs may

be directed to initiate action within a time frame of six

months and necessary financial allocation has to be

made for this purpose during the financial year 2020-21.

Needless to say that after construction, the High Courts

will issue necessary instructions regarding maintenance,

minimal catering arrangement, rent to be charged etc.”

Of the above five components of house rent related allowances, those

at (c) (Furniture and Air Conditioner Allowance) and (d) (Maintenance)

have been introduced for the first time. The other components form

part of the service conditions of judicial officers.

50. We find reason and justification for the addition of the two components.

All the components which have been suggested by the SNJPC are

integral to the proper performance of the duties by judicial officers

and are accordingly accepted.

13. Leave Travel Concession(LTC)/Home Travel Concession(HTC)

51. The FNJPC recommended that LTC should be provided once in a

block of four years to any place in India. However, it laid down a

threshold of a completion of five years of service before availing of

LTC. The FNJPC also recommended that HTC be extended once in

two years and the entitlement for the journey would be according to

the rules of the respective States. The recommendation was accepted

in 2002 by the decision in the All India Judges Association case

by this Court.

52. The JPC, while reiterating these recommendations, proposed two

modifications:

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 357

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

(i) A judicial officer may be permitted to avail of LTC on completion

of two years of service and on completion of probation (thereby

relaxing the requirement of five years of minimum service); and

(ii) The restriction on the availing of LTC in the last year of service

was dispensed with.

53. While reiterating the recommendation for HTC, the JPC suggested

an additional HTC if a judicial officer was subjected to two or more

transfers in the same cadre from one end of the State to another

for administrative reasons.

54. The SNJPC considered the views of the High Courts and of the

Associations. On considering all aspects of the matter, the SNJPC

made the following recommendations:

“i. Payment of one month’s salary for not availing the LTC

is unwarranted and it would defeat the objective of LTC.

ii. Encashment of 10 days earned leave while availing LTC

(not HTC) (subject to the maximum of 60 days) can

continue. The same will be in addition to encashment

of 300 days at the time of retirement and 30 days in a

block of two years.

iii(a).As regards frequency of LTC, the Judicial Officers may

be permitted to avail one LTC and one HTC in a block

of 3 years.

(b) As far as fresh recruits are concerned, the HTC shall be

allowed 2 times in the first block of 3 years. However,

the block of 3 years will commence on completion of the

period prescribed for probation (not necessarily declared).

iv(a).The Judicial officers irrespective of their rank shall be

allowed to travel by air and the reimbursement shall be

made subject to the condition that the tickets have been

purchased either directly from the Airlines or from the

agents authorized, namely, Ashoka Travels, Balmer and

Lawrie and IRCTC by the Central/State Government

subject to further addition or deletion of the authorized

agent by the Central/State Government.

358 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(b) The other details such as class of travel, advance etc. shall

be governed by the respective Rules/Orders of States/UTs.

v. The Judicial officers may be allowed to carry forward LTC

anywhere in India beyond retirement for a period of one year.

vi. There is no justification for extending the LTC/HTC facility

to the retired Judicial officers.

vii. As regards the foreign travel to SAARC countries, the

District Judges and Senior Civil Judges may be allowed

the said facility on two occasions in their service career

and only economy class travel shall be allowed.

viii. The Judicial officers shall not be required to avail of

earned leave only, for LTC/HTC purpose and they may

be permitted to avail of casual leave as a prefix and suffix

to the extent of two days.”

55. LTC/HTC were components already provided for by the FNJPC and

JPC. The recommendations of the SNJPC are on a continuum. We

accept the recommendations, save and except for foreign travel to

SAARC countries which shall be deleted.

14. Medical Allowance/Medical Facilities

56. The subject matter of the above allowance/facility has been duly

considered in the earlier reports of the FNJPC and JPC.Before

proceeding further, it would be appropriate to extract from the

recommendations of the SNJPC in regard to medical allowances

and medical facilities. The recommendations read as follows:

“1. Fixed medical allowance shall be payable @Rs.3,000/- p.m.

to the serving Judicial Officers with effect from 01.01.2016.

2. Fixed medical allowance shall be payable @Rs.4,000/-

to the pensioners and family pensioners with effect from

01.01.2016.

3. The spouse or other dependents of Judicial Officers

drawing family pension shall also be eligible for medical

facilities/reimbursement at par with the pensioners of

the judiciary.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 359

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

4(a) The necessity of reference from the Medical Officer

of a Government hospital shall be dispensed with.

Straightaway, the Judicial Officers including pensioners/

family pensioners shall be entitled to have consultations/

treatment in the Government notified/empanelled private

hospitals/Pathological Labs and seek reimbursement by

submitting the bills as per the usual procedure (which is

now being followed).

4(b) In regard to Judicial Officers governed by DGEHS or

CGHS, the existing procedure which is quite simple and

systematic, can be followed.

4(c) The Principal District Judges or Registry of High Court [in

respect of Principal District Judge] shall be empowered

to address credit letters to the concerned hospitals where

the Judicial Officer or Judicial Pensioner/Family Pensioner

has been or to be admitted as inpatient.

4(d) For the Pensioners and Family Pensioners, a Medical Card

on the lines of what is being issued in Delhi as shown in

Appendix III shall be issued by the Principal District Judge.

4(e) The expenditure incurred towards inpatient treatment or

for serious ailments requiring more or less continuous

treatment shall be processed and sanctioned by the

Principal District Judges or other authorized Officer of

that rank or as the case may be by the Registry of the

High Courts.

4(f) In the case of emergency, the Judicial Officer, serving &

retired as well as the family pensioner can take treatment in

any nearest private hospital – not necessarily, Government

notified hospitals and seek reimbursement as per the usual

procedure. If necessary, Credit letter shall be issued for

this purpose.

5. On submission of the estimate given by the recognized/

empanelled hospital, 80% shall be sanctioned as advance,

subject to preliminary scrutiny by the Principal District

Judge or a District Judge of equivalent rank authorized

by the Registry of the High Court. The balance shall be 

360 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

reimbursed on certification by the designated Civil Surgeon

or Official of the Directorate of Medical & Health Services

as the case may be. If the Government approved rates are

not available for any particular item, the certifying officer

shall have due regard to the rates generally charged in the

hospitals concerned. Though there needs to be scrutiny

before sanctioning the payment in view of the tendency

to exaggerate the estimates, the extent of disallowance

shall be minimal and the reasons for disallowance shall be

disclosed by the certifying authority. The bills sent by the

District Judge for scrutiny of the designated Civil Surgeon/

Officer of Directorate shall be cleared within a maximum

period of one month from the date of receipt.

6(a) The retired Judicial Officers and the family pensioners

who have settled down in another State shall have the

facility to claim medical reimbursement/advance from the

State from which s(he) is drawing pension/family pension.

6(b) The cost of treatment including room charges/tests

undergone in any Government/Government notified/

recognized hospitals/pathological labs in an emergency

or otherwise shall be reimbursed to the serving officers

on tour (official or private purpose) to another State or

settled in another State after retirement even though it is

not recognized hospital/lab in the State in which the officer

is serving or had served.

7. The Registry of the High Court shall examine whether

the notified/empanelled hospitals sufficiently cater to the

needs of the Judicial Officers including the pensioners/

family pensioners and send proposals to the Government

for notifying additional hospitals/pathological Labs to the

extent it is considered necessary.

8. To avoid delays in processing and sanctioning the bills

for want of funds, the Registry of High court shall take

prompt action in addressing the Government for releasing

additional funds and the Finance Department of the State

shall take immediate action by way of making available

the additional funds to the High Court on this account.”

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 361

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

We analyze the recommendations of the SNJPC below.

Fixed Allowance

57. The SNJPC has justifiably increased the fixed medical allowance

to Rs 3,000 per month for serving judicial officers and to Rs 4,000

per month to pensioners and family pensioners with effect from

01.01.2016. This recommendation was made in view of the fact

that the FNJPC had recommended a fixed medical allowance of Rs

300 per month, which was increased by the JPC to Rs 1,000 per

month for serving judicial officers. The JPC enhanced the medical

allowance to Rs 1,500 per month for retired judicial officers and Rs

750 per month for family pensioners. The recommendation made

by the SNJPC for uniformity in the medial allowance payable to

pensioners and family pensioners is wholesome and is consistent with

Article 14. Of the Constitution. There is no valid basis to distinguish

between pensioners and family pensioners for the payment of a fixed

medical allowance. Moreover, an increase of Rs 1,000 per month for

pensioners as compared to serving judicial officers is also justified

considering the fact that the pensioners as a class would need more

medical attention with advancing years.

Medical Facilities and Reimbursement

58. The medical facilities to be provided to serving judicial officers,

retired judicial officers and family pensioners differ from State to

State. There are three broad models which are followed in the case

of government servants:

(a) Access to a health scheme like CGHS under which there are

empaneled hospitals;

(b) Access to government hospitals and thereafter upon following

a procedure of reference; and

(c) Cashless facilities pursuant to group insurance policies.

59. The FNJPC recommended that the judicial officers should also be

given similar medical facilities as are being given to the members

of the State legislature. It recommended that the State Government

should notify the list of hospitals for medical treatment of judicial 

362 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

officers and their families. A similar benefit was extended to retired

judges. The FNJPC’s recommendations were accepted by this Court

in All India Judges Association v Union of India14.

60. The JPC reiterated the recommendations of the FNJPC. Its

recommendations were accepted in All India Judges Association

v Union of India15.

61. While noting the varying practices which are followed across the

country, the SNJPC observed that while the CGHS and DGEHS are

working well, difficulties are faced by judicial officers in several States

where there is neither a proper empanelment of doctors, hospitals

and labs nor is there an effective procedure for reimbursement of

medical bills. It specifically noted the case of the State of Maharashtra

where the earlier orders of this Court were not observed. The SNJPC

further noted that in the absence of proper empanelment, referral by

a Medical Officer of a government hospital is needed for treatment

in private hospitals. The SNJPC has taken note of the grievance

of the judicial officers while formulating its recommendations. The

grievances which were projected by the judicial officers included

the following:

“1) Lack of adequate number of notified hospitals/pathological

labs.

2) Non-availability of cashless treatment for in-hospital

treatment even in case of serious ailments and emergency.

3) The Civil Surgeon or Directorate of Medical/Health

services to whom the claims are referred to are enforcing

unjustifiable cuts.

4) Delay in processing/passing the bills in case of high claims.

5) Insistence of Essentiality Certificate even for medicines

purchased on the basis of the prescription issued by

Registered Medical Practitioner or even the Consultant

of the notified hospital.

14 (2002) 4 SCC 247

15 (2010) 14 SCC 720

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 363

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

6) Procedural problems being faced by the Judicial Officers

who have settled down in other States after retirement.

7) Non-specification of premier hospitals of repute in other

States for the purpose of availing reimbursable medical

treatment in cases of serious ailments.

8) Non-extension of medical facilities to the family pensioners.”

62. During the course of the hearing, the attention of this Court has been

drawn to the situation in the State of Uttar Pradesh by members of

the Association representing former judges. It has been submitted that

the hospitals which have been empaneled by the State Government

for the purpose of cashless facilities are providing sub-standard

treatment. As a result, the cashless facilities cannot be availed of

by the officers. It has been submitted that since a sufficiently large

number of hospitals is empaneled under CGHS (nearly 300 hospitals

in the State of Uttar Pradesh alone), the State Government may be

directed to follow the hospitals which are empaneled for the purpose

of CGHS so as to ensure that the quality of treatment which is

extended to the judicial officers and retired judicial officers as well

as family pensioners is of a requisite standard.

63. The primary concern which has been expressed by serving judicial

officers and by retired officers is that the recommendations made by

the SNJPC appear to lower the bench-mark or standard set by the

FNJPC of entitling the judicial officers to the same medical facilities

as those provided to members of the legislative assembly.

64. Mr K Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae, has submitted that this may

not be an appropriate manner of reading the recommendations

made by the SNJPC. According to him, the recommendations of

the SNJPC should be read holistically and harmoniously with those

of the FNJPC. Hence, the recommendations which were made by

the FNJPC to have empaneled doctors, hospitals or labs and the

recommendations to do away with the referral system must be

viewed in addition to the standards which were set by SNJPC. We

find force on the submission.

65. The substantive recommendations which are made by the SNJPC

are accepted. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the

Constitution, we institutionalize the process issuing the following

directions in the segment of this judgment which follows.

364 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

15. Newspaper and Magazine Allowances

66. The following recommendations have been made by the SNJPC:

“1. Reimbursement for newspaper and magazines shall be

Rs.1000/- for District Judges (two newspapers and two

magazines) and Rs.700/- for Civil Judges (two newspapers

and one magazine).

2. The reimbursement shall be on half yearly basis from

January to June and July to December, on the basis of

self certification.

3. The allowance at the above mentioned rates shall be

available from 01.01.2020.

4. More beneficial provision already in operation in any State

shall continue.”

67. The recommendations are accepted.

16. Risk Allowance

68. The SNJPC has considered it reasonable to grant risk allowance.

The SNJPC has issued the following recommendations:

“1. Risk allowance shall be made available to the Judicial

Officers working in the States of Jammu & Kashmir and

insurgency affected North East States at the same rate

as is available to the Civilian Government officials working

in those areas.

2. The allowance will be available w.e.f. 01.01.2020.”

69. The recommendation is accepted.

17. Robe Allowance

70. The SNJPC has noted that the pay and facilities of judicial officers

have considerably improved in view of the recommendations made

by the Judicial Commissions. Hence, the situation which existed

at the time when the FNJPC had examined the matter “no longer

exists now”. Hence, it was of the view that it would be appropriate

if judicial officers do not raise such a demand. The Seventh CPC

recommended a uniform allowance only to those employees who are

required to wear a prescribed dress in the course of the discharge

of their duties. However, having regard to the practice which was in 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 365

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

force for a considerable time and the essential nature of the robe as

apparel for Judges, the SNJPC recommended a “modest increase of

the allowance, with the hope that such demand for robe allowance

will not be raised before the next Commission”. Consequently, the

SNJPC recommended that:

(i) An allowance of Rs 12,000 will be payable once in three years

with effect from 01.01.2016; and

(ii) The demand for the robe allowance may not be raised before

the next Commission.

71. We are inclined to accept and accordingly accept the above

recommendations.

18. Special Pay for Administrative Work

72. The SNJPC noted that judicial officers in-charge of certain courts/

tribunals have administrative responsibilities for which extra time

outside the court working hours has to be spent. This is especially

so in the case of Principal District and Sessions Judges or other

District Judges having similar responsibilities. The SNJPC noted that

Principal District Judges in the districts and officers of equivalent

ranks in the cities are required to inspect courts, monitor the progress

of cases, assess the performance of officers, conduct discreet

inquiries in vigilance cases, and send reports to the High Courts.

The administrative work, as the SNJPC noted, is considerable and

extra time has to be devoted both at the residence and office for

carrying out such duties.

73. Bearing in mind the additional administrative duties which have to

be discharged by judicial officers, the SNJPC made the following

recommendations:

“1. Special Pay for Judicial officers doing administrative work

shall be payable to :

a) Principal District and Sessions Judges : Rs.7000/- per

month

b) Other District Judges including I Additional District Judges

entrusted with administrative work who have to generally

spend time beyond Court working hours : Rs. 3500/- per

month. 

366 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

c) District Judges presiding over Special Courts and Tribunals

having independent administrative responsibilities :

Rs.3500/- per month.

d) CJMs and Principal Senior, Junior Civil Judges and other

Judicial Officers having administrative responsibilities

being in charge of independent Courts with filing powers

: Rs.2000/- per month.

2. The Special Pay shall be available w.e.f. 01.01.2019.”

74. The SNJPC has adduced a sound rationale for the above

recommendation. The recommendation is accordingly accepted.

19. Sumptuary Allowance

75. The SNJPC has made the following recommendations:

1. The sumptuary allowance shall be available to the Judicial

Officers at the following rates :

District Judges Rs. 7,800/- per month

Civil Judges (Sr. Div.) Rs. 5,800/- per month

Civil Judges (Jr. Div.) Rs. 3,800/- per month

2. The allowance shall be available w.e.f. 01.01.2016.

3. The following categories of Judicial Officers shall get Rs.1,000/-

(One thousand) more by virtue of their status or the additional

responsibilities they shoulder.

● Principal District Judge in-charge of administration in the

Districts/Cities.

● District Judges in selection grade and super time-scale.

● Director of Judicial Academy/Judicial Training Institute/

Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority.

● Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

4. No sumptuary allowance shall be payable to retired Judicial

Officers.

76. The report of the SNJPC notes that the Seventh CPC recommended

the abolition of sumptuary allowance while observing that expenditure

on hospitality should be treated as office expenditure and that the

Ministry of Finance shall lay down the ceilings for various levels. In

that context, the SNJPC observed:

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 367

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

“5. The VII CPC recommended abolition of sumptuary

allowance and observed that the expenditure on hospitality

should be treated as office expenditure and the Ministry

of Finance shall lay down the ceilings for various levels.

Accepting the recommendation of CPC, the sumptuary/

entertainment allowance was abolished w.e.f. 30.06.2017.

At the same time, by the Office Memorandum dated

22.09.2017, the Government of India (Department of

Expenditure, Ministry of Finance) having observed that

“the hospitality related expenditure is now to be incurred

as office expenditure”, conveyed the President’s decision

prescribing the ceiling of office expenditure on hospitality

only for a few dignitaries and officials. The Table appended

to the O.M. is as follows:

Sl.No. Designation Existing Rates

of sumptuary/

Entertainment

Allowance

(Rs. per month)

Prescribed ceiling

in respect of

hospitality related

office expenditure

(Rs. per month)

1. Chief Justice of India 20000/- 45000/-

2. Judges of the

Supreme

Court and Chief

Justice of

High Courts

15000/- 34000/-

3. Judges of the High

Court

12000/- 27000/-

4. Cabinet Secretary 10000/- 23000/-

5. Training

Establishments

Director or Head 3500/- 8000/-

Course Directors 2500/- 5700/-

Counsellors 2000/- 4500/-

6 Judicial Officers

in Supreme Court

Registry

At the same rate

as they were

getting in the

parent office

Existing rates may

be multiplied by a

factor of 2.25”

368 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

77. The SNJPC rejected the demand of the Association in regard to the

quantum of increase in sumptuary allowance and decided to adopt

an increase of 2.25 times, broadly speaking, as the guiding principle

to arrive at this conclusion, based on the yardstick of annual inflation

and increase of points in the consumer price index.

The increase which has been granted by the SNJPC is reasonable

and commends itself for acceptance. We accordingly accept the

recommendation.

20. Telephone Facility

78. The following recommendations have been made by the SNJPC:

“1. The Judicial Officers shall be provided with the following

telephone facilities:

i. Residential Telephone (Landline) :

(a) The landline telephone and broadband facility (by the

same or different service providers) shall be provided at

the residence of the Judicial Officers with the permitted

user as follows :

District Judges : Rs.1500/- per month

Civil Judges : Rs.1000/- per month

inclusive of rent, calls (local and STD both) and internet use.

(b) At places where broadband facility is not available, the

permissible user shall be :

District Judges : Rs.1000/- per month

Civil Judges : Rs.750/- per month

inclusive of rent and calls (local and STD both).

ii. Mobile Phone :

(a) The provision of mobile phone (handset) with internet

shall be as follows:

District Judge : Rs.30,000/-

Civil Judges (Jr. & Sr. Divisions) : Rs.20,000/-

And the permissible user shall be :

District Judges : Rs.2000/- per month

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 369

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

Civil Judges : Rs.1500/- per month

inclusive of internet data package.

(b) At the request of the Judicial Officers, the mobile phone

handset shall be replaced once in three years.

(c) The Judicial Officers shall be given option to retain the old

mobile phone handset at a price to be determined as per

the guidelines prescribed by the Registry of High Court.

(d) The existing facilities in so far as they are more beneficial

by virtue of the order issued by some of the State

Governments/UTs shall be continued notwithstanding the

above recommendations.

iii. Office Telephone:

Regarding telephone connection to the office, the present

arrangement shall continue.”

79. The recommendation is reasonable and is accepted.

21. Transfer Grant

80. The summary of the recommendations of the SNJPC reads as follows:

“1. On transfer, the composite transfer grant shall be equivalent

to one month’s basic pay.

2. If the transfer is to a place at a distance of 20 kilometres

or less or within the same city (if it involves actual change

of residence), the transfer grant shall be 1/3 rd of the

basic pay.

3. For the transportation of personal effects, the O.M.

dated 13.07.2017 (annexed as Appendix I) issued by the

Department of Expenditure; Government of India pursuant

to the recommendations of VII CPC shall be applicable.

4. In case of transportation by road, the admissible amount

shall be Rs.50/- per km. inclusive of labour charges for

loading and unloading or the actual whichever is lower.

The said amount shall be raised by 25% when the DA

increases by 50%.

5. The recommendations will come into effect from 01.01.2016.

370 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

6. The Officers who have undergone transfer(s) after

01.01.2016 and their claims for transfer grant paid as

per pre-revised pay scales, shall be paid the differential

amount on the basis of revised pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016.”

81. The above recommendations are reasonable and are accordingly

accepted.

Institutionalization

82. We are of the considered view that a framework has to be set

up under the auspices of every High Court for institutionalizing

the implementation of the orders of this Court with respect to the

service conditions of the district judiciary and for implementing the

recommendations of the SNJPC, as approved. Institutionalizing the

mechanism for enforcement and implementation will have several

benefits which are set out below:

(a) The implementation of the orders of this Court will be streamlined.

A Committee set up by this Court at the level of every High

Court to act as a bridge between the High Court and the State

Government will facilitate seamless implementation;

(b) Experience indicates that this Court is flooded with individual

applications and grievances concerning pay and service

conditions leading to multiplicity of proceedings and issues.

This would be obviated by institutionalizing the process at the

level of each High Court; and

(c) An institutionalized entity can act as a body for recording and

archiving information and suggestions, maintaining a record of

difficulties faced in implementation and generating an institutional

memory which will facilitate a consultative framework for the

next Pay Commission.

83. Bearing in mind the above benefits, we hereby direct the constitution

of a Committee in each High Court for overseeing the implementation

of the recommendations of the SNJPC as approved by this Court. The

Committee shall be called the ‘Committee for Service Conditions

of the District Judiciary16’. The composition of the Committee shall

consist of the following:

16 “CSCDJ”

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 371

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

(i) Two Judges of the High Court to be nominated by the Chief

Justice of which one should be a Judge who has previously

served as a member of the district judiciary;

(ii) The Law Secretary/Legal Remembrancer;

(iii) The Registrar General of the High Court who shall serve as an

ex officio Secretary of the Committee; and

(iv) A retired judicial officer in the cadre of District Judge to be

nominated by the Chief Justice who shall act as a nodal officer

for the day to day redressal of grievances.

84. The senior most Judge nominated by the Chief Justice shall be

the Chairperson of the Committee. The Chairperson may co-opt

officers of the State Government, including the Secretaries in the

Departments of Home, Finance, Health, Personnel and Public Works,

when issues concerning these departments are being deliberated

upon and implemented. The Chairperson of the Committee may

at their discretion co-opt the Accountant General to ensure due

implementation of the recommendations of the SNJPC, as approved

by this Court. The Committee would be at liberty to consult with the

representatives of the Judges’ Association or, as the case may be,

the Retired Judges’ Association in the State.

85. The principal functions of the CSCDJ shall be to :

(i) Oversee the proper implementation of the recommendations of

the SNJPC, including pay, pension, allowances and all allied

matters as approved by this Court by its orders;

(ii) Act as a single point nodal agency for the redressal of the

grievances of the judicial officers, both serving and retired

to secure the implementation of the recommendations of the

SNJPC which have been approved by this Court;

(iii) Develop an institutional mechanism for recording and archiving

institutional concerns pertaining to pay, pension and service

conditions of the district judiciary which shall aid in the

consultative framework for subsequent Pay Commissions

constituted for judicial officers; and

(iv) Ensure that hospitals of a requisite standard with necessary

facilities are empaneled for every district in consultation with the

Secretary in the Health Department of the State Government. 

372 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

The Collectors of the districts shall render all necessary

assistance in ensuring that the process of empanelment is

duly streamlined. The process of empanelment shall ensure

that the hospitals which are empaneled have a demonstrable

track record and possess requisite medical facilities required

for affording medical treatment of the requisite quality and care.

The Committee may also ensure the empanelment of institutions

for the purpose of carrying out medical investigations. The

Committee will prescribe the benchmarks for empanelment.

The Committee shall ensure that where medical care of the

requisite standard for specified ailments is not available in

the district concerned, treatment in respect of those ailments

may be availed of elsewhere in an empaneled hospital. The

Committee would be at liberty to take incidental measures

covering situations where officers who have served in the State

are residing outside the State. In such a case, the Committee

may consider empanelment of hospitals outside the State so

as to facilitate the availing of medical facilities.

86. Each of the CSCDJs constituted under the auspices of the High

Court shall consider the following:

(i) Formulating a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) with

specified timelines for claims and disbursal of allowances as

approved by this Court, including the payment of arrears of

salary and pension to judicial officers, pensioners and family

pensioners; and

(ii) The SOP shall, inter alia, cover the following:

(a) The nodal agency for disbursement of allowances, arrears

and other service and retiral benefits;

(b) Laying down a simplified and effective procedure for

reimbursement and disbursement of claims;

(c) Providing contact details of the nodal agency at the district

or State level;

(d) Publication of the SOP on the website of the High Court,

together with the details of the nodal officer; and

(e) Maintenance of a database of retired Judges and family

pensioners in the district judiciary with a process for

periodical updating, at least on a quarterly basis.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 373

All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors

87. All States and Union Territories shall now act in terms of the above

directions expeditiously. Disbursements on account of arrears of

salary, pension and allowances due and payable to judicial officers,

retired judicial officers and family pensioners shall be computed and

paid on or before 29 February 2024. The CSCDJs institutionalized

in terms of the directions issued earlier shall monitor compliance.

Each Committee working under the auspices of the High Court shall

submit its report to this Court on or before 7 April 2024 through the

Registrar General of the High Court.

88. The CSCDJs shall also verify that the earlier orders of this Court in

regard to the payment of arrears of salary and pension have been

duly implemented.

Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case:

Directions issued.