Administration of Justice – Miscarriage of procedural justice – The principal grievance urged was that the petitioner was directly affected by the order of the High Court, but he was neither made a party to the proceedings nor was he furnished a notice of the proceedings – The Supreme Court permitted to file application for recall of the High Court’s order (26.12.2023) – The High Court dismissed the application – SLP filed by the petitioner for recall of the order of the High Court:

* Author

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 442 : 2024 INSC 43

Sanjay Kundu

v.

Registrar General, High Court of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors

(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No 550-551 2024)

12 January 2024

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud*, CJI, J B Pardiwala

and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration

The proceedings before the High Court were initiated on an

email from complainant, addressed to the Chief Justice of the

High Court. The High Court suo motu registered a Criminal Writ

Petition pursuant to the above email. The High Court directed that

the petitioner herein, who is holding the post of DGP, and the SP,

Kangra should be moved to any other post to ensure that a fair

investigation takes place. The petitioner was neither impleaded

in the proceedings nor was he heard before the above order was

passed. On that ground, the petitioner challenged it in a Special

Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Headnotes

Administration of Justice – Miscarriage of procedural justice

– The principal grievance urged was that the petitioner was

directly affected by the order of the High Court, but he was

neither made a party to the proceedings nor was he furnished

a notice of the proceedings – The Supreme Court permitted to

file application for recall of the High Court’s order (26.12.2023)

– The High Court dismissed the application – SLP filed by the

petitioner for recall of the order of the High Court:

Held: Earlier, when the Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to

move an application for recall of the High Court’s order, the directions

of the High Court for transfer of the petitioner were stayed – The

Court also stayed the order issued pursuant to the High Court’s

directions posting the petitioner as Principal Secretary (Ayush),

Government of Himanchal Pradesh – However, the High Court 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 443

Sanjay Kundu v. Registrar General, High Court of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors

dismissed the recall application and directed the State to consider

forming a Special Investigation Team consisting of IG level officers

to coordinate the investigation in all the FIRs and to advise the

government on providing effective security to the complainant and

his family – In the instant case, the correct course of action for

the High Court would have been to recall its ex parte order and

to commence the proceedings afresh so as to furnish both the

petitioner and the complainant and other affected parties including

the SP, Kangra, an opportunity to place their perspectives before

it – Instead, the High Court, while deciding the recall application,

heavily relied on the status report submitted by the SP, Shimla

– The impugned order suffers from a patent error of jurisdiction –

The order was passed without compliance with the principles of

justice, especially, the principle of audi alteram partem – The order

dated 26.12.2023 had serious consequences, and it was passed

without hearing the petitioner who stood to be affected by it – A

post-decisional hearing of the kind conducted by the High Court

lacks fresh and dispassionate application of mind to the merits of

the recall application, and is for that very reason, likely to cause

disquiet – Thus, the direction of the High Court directing the shifting

out of the petitioner from the post of DGP is set aside – However,

the directions of the High Court to consider constituting an SIT

and grant of protection to the complainant and his family are not

disturbed – Instead of and in place of the direction of the High

Court requiring the State Government to consider constituting an

SIT, the State is directed to do so – The SIT shall consist of IG

level officers who shall not report to the petitioner for the purpose

of the investigation. [Paras 33, 34, 36, 37]

List of Keywords

Administration of Justice; Principles of justice; Miscarriage of

procedural justice; Error of jurisdiction; Audi alteram partem.

Case Arising From

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave

Petition (Criminal) Nos. 550-551 of 2024.

From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2024 of the High Court

of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CRMP No.79 of 2024 and CRWP

No.14 of 2023.

444 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties

Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv., Gagan Gupta, Arkaj Kumar, Padmesh Mishra,

Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Rushab Aggarwal,

Aakarsh Mishra, Advs. for the Petitioner.

Rahul Sharma, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

1. Application for impleadment is allowed. Mr Nishant Sharma,

complainant, shall be added as a respondent to these proceedings.

Mr Rahul Sharma, counsel appears along with Ms Rashmi Malhotra,

counsel on behalf of the newly added respondent.

2. These proceedings emanate from an order of a Division Bench of

the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 9 January 2024.

Criminal Writ Petition and proceedings before the High Court

3. The proceedings before the High Court were initiated on an email

from Mr Nishant Kumar Sharma, addressed to the Chief Justice

of the High Court through the Registrar General. The complainant

alleged in his email, that he was facing threats emanating from two

persons - “X”, a former IPS officer and “Y”, a practicing advocate.

4. According to his email, the complainant is a resident of Palampur,

in District Kangra of Himachal Pradesh. His family conducts a hotel

in Palampur. A relative of “Y” had invested in the company of the

complainant. He alleges that “Y” has been pressurizing him and

his father through “X”to sell their shares in their company. “Y” was

stated to have threatened the company’s auditors, and obstructed

its functioning. The complainant alleged that he had escaped an

assault on 25 August, 2023 in Gurugram. The allegation was that

he was receiving phone calls from the office of the petitioner, who

is the Director General of Police1

, Himachal Pradesh at the behest

of Y. Allegedly, the complainant received a WhatsApp message from

the SHO, Palampur stating that the petitioner wished to speak to him

1 “DGP”.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 445

Sanjay Kundu v. Registrar General, High Court of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors

and that he must call back on a particular phone number. When the

complainant established contact, he was connected to the petitioner,

who insisted that the complainant come to Shimla to meet him. The

email detailed criminal complaints filed by him in Gurugram after

an alleged attack on him, and subsequent instances of intimidation

to compel him to withdraw them. No FIR was registered in respect

of this complaint and a later complaint filed by the complainant in

relation to an incident that transpired in Mcleodganj.

5. On 9 November 2023, the High Court suo motu registered a Criminal

Writ Petition pursuant to the above email. The State of Himachal

Pradesh, Superintendent of Police, Kangra and Superintendent

of Police, Shimla were arrayed as respondents. On 10 November

2023, the High Court issued notice, directed the two SPs (Kangra

and Shimla) to file status reports and appointed an amicus curiae.

6. Status reports were filed on 16 November 2023 before the High

Court. The Advocate General assured the High Court that an FIR

would be registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant

on 28 October, 2023. On 16 November 2023, FIR No 55/2023 was

registered by the Mcleodganj Police Station for offences punishable

under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code2

, after the registration of the criminal writ petition before

the High Court.

7. The status report submitted by the SP Kangra indicated that the

complainant had addressed an email to her on 06 November 2023

stating that he had received a phone call intimating him that an FIR

(No. 98/2023) had been registered against him at Shimla. The status

report submitted by SP, Shimla, stated that the said FIR 98/2023,

under Sections 299, 469, 499 and 505 of the IPC was registered

on a complaint made by the petitioner to the SHO, Police Station

East, District Shimla.

8. The status report of the SP Shimla indicated that there were telephonic

conversations between the petitioner and the complainant. Moreover,

on 27 October 2023 which is the date on which the incident is alleged

to have taken place at Mcleodganj, there were 15 missed calls from

the office land line numbers of the petitioner to the complainant. Shortly

2 “IPC”. 

446 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

after the complainant refused to come to Shimla at the instance of

the petitioner, he was accosted by two persons at Mcleodganj who

called upon him to withdraw the complaint at Gurugram. The status

report found prima facie evidence of extortion, use of criminal force

to constrain the complainant to settle a civil dispute between him

and “Y” and abuse of the office of the petitioner, as DGP of Himachal

Pradesh.

9. A subsequent status report filed by the SP Shimla stated that

an Additional Superintendent of Police was placed in charge of

investigating FIR No 55 of 2023 filed by the complainant, in place

of the DSP. Another status report indicated that FIR No 350/2023

was registered on 27 November 2023 for offences under Sections

323, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC at Police Station, Sector

9, Gurugram on the complaint lodged on 25 August 2023 by the

complainant.

10. On 21 December 2023, the Advocate General, appearing on behalf

of the State of Himachal Pradesh, submitted that the investigation

was being carried out uninfluenced by the office of the DGP. The

High Court flagged its concern at that stage in the following terms :

“(i) there is material detected in the investigation, as

pointed out in the status report of the respondent

No.3, which showed that the Director General of

Police had also been in continuous contact with Y,

the alleged business partner of the complainant (with

whom the complainant has disputes);

(ii) the Director General of Police had put the complainant

under surveillance;

(iii) that Director General of Police also made missed calls

on 27.10.2023 (the date of incident on Mcleodganj

alleged by the complainant) to the complainant’s

mobile phone and also spoke to him on that day; and

(iv) the Director General of Police had himself got

registered an FIR No.98/2023 dt. 4.11.2023 under

Sections 299, 469, 499 and 505 IPC against the

complainant.”

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 447

Sanjay Kundu v. Registrar General, High Court of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors

11. The High Court observed that in the backdrop of the status report,

the FIR registered at the behest of the petitioner, the surveillance of

the complainant and communication between the petitioner and the

complainant, the failure of the Police to act on the complaint was not

explained by the SP, Kangra. It noted that the FIR was registered

belatedly on 16 November 2023 only after the Court had entertained

the Writ Petition. The High Court then proceeded to observe that

the material collected by the SP, Shimla indicated prima facie that

the Director General of Police:

(i) Had been in touch with “Y”, the alleged business partner of

the complainant;

(ii) Had made 15 missed calls in an effort to contact the complainant

on 27 October 2023;

(iii) Had spoken to the complainant on 27 October 2023 and after

he refused to come to Shimla, the complainant was threatened

in an incident at Mcleodganj;

(iv) Placed the complainant under surveillance; and

(v) Lodged FIR No 98/2023 on 4 November 2023 against the

complainant.

12. The High Court observed that there is a real possibility that the

investigation would not be carried on fairly. It accordingly directed

that the petitioner, who is holding the post of DGP, and the SP,

Kangra should be moved to any other post to ensure that a fair

investigation takes place.

13. The petitioner was neither impleaded in the proceedings nor was

he heard before the above order was passed. On that ground, the

petitioner challenged it in a Special Leave Petition before this Court.

14. The principal grievance urged before this Court was that the petitioner

was directly affected by the order of the High Court dated 26 December

2023, but he was neither made a party to the proceedings nor was

he furnished a notice of the proceedings.

15. This Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for recall

of the High Court’s order dated 26 December 2023. The recall

application was directed to be disposed of within a period of two

weeks and until then, the directions of the High Court for transfer of

the petitioner were stayed. This Court also stayed the order issued 

448 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

pursuant to the High Court’s directions posting the petitioner as

Principal Secretary (Ayush), Government of Himanchal Pradesh.

16. This Court recorded that both petitioner and complainant had no

objection if the investigation were to be transferred to the Central

Bureau of Investigation3

 so as to obviate any allegation of interference

at the behest of the petitioner.

The present Special Leave Petition:

17. The present SLP stems from the rejection of the petitioner’s recall

application mentioned above. The High Court has dismissed it and has

directed the State Government to consider within a week, forming a

Special Investigation Team4

 consisting of IG level officers to coordinate

the investigation in all the FIRs and to advise the government on

providing effective security to the complainant and his family.

18. By the impugned order, the High Court also rejected an application

filed by the SP Kangra, to implead her and to recall its earlier order

dated 26 December 2023 by which she was also directed to be moved

out of the post. Though the State Government had implemented

the order of the High Court against the petitioner, it has not been

implemented against SP, Kangra yet.

19. Before the High Court, it was admitted on behalf of the petitioner that

he had requested the complainant to come to Shimla. The case of the

petitioner was that he was contacted by a senior advocate (referred

to as “Y”) who had a dispute in regard to business transactions with

the complainant. Allegedly, the dispute had taken an ugly turn when

scandalous allegations were made by the complainant against “Y”,

following which, on 9 October 2023, an email was addressed by “Y”

to the petitioner to take action against the complainant. The petitioner

admitted that in pursuance of the email, on 27 October 2023, he

asked his Private Secretary to contact the complainant through his

official land line. The petitioner states that he was informed that

the complainant could not be reached despite repeated attempts.

Eventually, on 27 October 2023, the complainant made a call to

the petitioner and when he was requested to come to Shimla, he

declined to do so on the ground that he was travelling out of India.

3 “CBI”.

4 “SIT”.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 449

Sanjay Kundu v. Registrar General, High Court of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors

20. On the other hand, it is the complainant’s case that “Y” has been

using his connections so as to intimidate the complainant into selling

his shares in his company. Having failed in the takeover bid, “Y” has

resorted to threatening the complainant and his family, through the

petitioner.

21. The High Court observed that while it could not decide on the rival

contentions, the petitioner, who is a public servant, had overstepped

his authority by intervening in what was clearly a private civil dispute.

The High Court noted that the status report submitted by the SP Shimla

indicated the continuing contact of “Y” with the petitioner between

September and November 2023 and that the SHO, Palampur had

approached the complainant requiring him to call up the land line

number of the petitioner. The High Court observed that the petitioner

had admitted in his recall application to having placed the hotel run by

the complainant under surveillance for alleged drug running activities

in September 2023.

22. The status report filed by the SP Shimla on 4 January 2023 alleged

that the petitioner was intimidating in his conduct towards the

Investigating Officer handling the case initiated by FIR No. 98/2023

filed at the instance of the petitioner against the complainant. The

status report stated that the conduct of the petitioner raised suspicion

about his role in the alleged offences against the complainant. When

the petitioner was confronted with this status report of the SP, Shimla,

the petitioner imputed mala fide intentions to the said officer.

23. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to note the submissions

which have been urged by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner in relation to the imputations against

the SP, Shimla. A blast is alleged to have taken place on 18 July

2023 in Shimla resulting in the loss of two lives and injury to several

others. The blast was investigated under the supervision of the

SP Shimla who, according to the petitioner, sought to cover it up

as an accidental blast of an LPG cylinder. The petitioner is stated

to have addressed a communication to the Additional Secretary in

the Union Ministry of Home Affairs requesting an investigation by

the National Bomb Data Centre of the National Security Guard. In

subsequent communications to the Chief Secretary on 10 August

2023 and 1 September 2023, the petitioner alleged negligence in

the post-blast investigation by the SP Shimla and requisitioned the 

450 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

NSG for investigation, suspecting the use of an IED including RDX

which was allegedly detected at the site of the blast.

24. In this backdrop, the petitioner has alleged that the SP Shimla was

on inimical terms arising out of his communications to the State

Government in regard to SP Shimla’s handling of the blast.

25. The Advocate General has opposed the plea of the petitioner for

recalling the order and opposed the allegations levelled by the

petitioner against the SP Shimla.

26. This court had noted in its previous order dated 3 January 2024,

that counsel for both the complainant as well as the petitioner are

agreeable to the transfer of the investigation to the CBI. The High

Court noted that the Advocate General has opposed the transfer of

the investigation. Bearing in mind the principles laid down by this

court - that the power to transfer an investigation to an outside agency

is to be exercised with circumspection - the High Court rejected the

plea for transfer of the investigation to the CBI.

Analysis

27. The case has travelled to this Court once again arising out of the

rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for recall of the

earlier order of the High Court.

28. The consequence of the impugned order is that:

(i) The earlier order of the High Court directing that the petitioner

should be shifted out of the post of DGP, Himachal Pradesh

stands revived;

(ii) The State Government has been directed to consider forming

a Special Investigation Team consisting of IG level officers to

coordinate the investigation of all the FIRs; and

(iii) The grant of protection to the complainant has been directed

to be evaluated by the Government.

29. We have heard Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner and Mr Rahul Sharma, counsel appearing

on behalf of the newly added respondent-complainant.

30. At the outset, we must express our reservations about the manner

in which the High Court took up the matter ex parte and issued

directions transferring the petitioner out of the post of DGP in the first 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 451

Sanjay Kundu v. Registrar General, High Court of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors

instance. The proceedings were triggered by an email addressed by

the complainant to the Chief Justice imputing allegations of the misuse

of his official position as DGP against the petitioner. The allegations

which were levelled by the complainant are that the petitioner, in

his official capacity, intervened in a civil dispute and attempted to

used his office to intimidate the complainant. The allegations are

apparently serious and evidently formed the basis of the order that

the High Court originally passed on 26 December 2023.

31. Based on the status reports filed in the proceedings before it, the High

Court came to a prima facie conclusion that the investigation into the

FIRs could not be conducted fairly with the petitioner at the helm as

the DGP. The High Court thus directed that the petitioner be moved

to other posts to ensure a fair investigation. In doing so the High

court has assumed disciplinary jurisdiction over the petitioner. This

was clearly impermissible. As a serving police officer, the petitioner

is subject to the disciplinary control which is wielded over him in

terms of the rules governing service. The High Court has improperly

assumed those powers to itself without considering the chain of

administrative control in the hierarchy of the service. The State

Government shifted the petitioner as Principal Secretary (Ayush) in

compliance with the directions of the High Court. The consequence

of shifting out of an IPS officer has serious consequences. The order

was passed without an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the

allegations against him or to place his response before the Court.

There was thus a manifest miscarriage of procedural justice.

32. By this Court’s order dated 3 January 2024, the petitioner was

relegated to the remedy of a recall application before the High

Court since his grievance was the denial of an opportunity to be

heard before the High Court, before it passed the order dated

26 December 2023.

33. The correct course of action for the High Court would have been to

recall its ex parte order dated 26 December 2023 and to commence

the proceedings afresh so as to furnish both the petitioner and the

complainant and other affected parties including the SP, Kangra,

an opportunity to place their perspectives before it. Instead, the

High Court, while deciding the recall application, heavily relied on 

452 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the status report submitted by the SP, Shimla on 4 January 2024.

The High Court has, in the course of its order, also relied on the

earlier status reports which were referred to in its order dated 26

December 2023.

34. The impugned order suffers from a patent error of jurisdiction. The

order was passed without compliance with the principles of justice,

especially, the principle of audi alteram partem. The order dated

26 December 2023 had serious consequences, and it was passed

without hearing the petitioner who stood to be affected by it. A postdecisional hearing of the kind conducted by the High Court lacks

fresh and dispassionate application of mind to the merits of the recall

application, and is for that very reason, likely to cause disquiet.

35. At this stage, we are desisting from expressing any opinion on the

allegations which are made against the petitioner or, for that matter,

the allegations that the petitioner has made against SP, Shimla. The

SP Shimla is not present before this Court. It is, therefore, necessary

to clarify that the submissions which have been made by the petitioner

earlier, as recorded above, have not been commented upon in the

course of this judgment.

36. The High Court has directed the State Government to consider

constituting an SIT so that an objective and fair investigation can

take place. The High Court has directed that the SIT shall consist

of IG level officers who will probe all aspects of the matter including

the FIRs which gave rise to the proceedings before it. Likewise, the

High Court has directed that the State Government should consider

granting adequate protection to the complainant and his family. We

are not disturbing either of these two findings by the High Court.

37. However, it would be inappropriate to maintain the order of the

High Court directing that the petitioner be shifted out of the post

of DGP in pursuance of the earlier order dated 26 December 2023

which stands affirmed by the impugned order. The above direction

of the High Court directing the shifting out of the petitioner from the

post of DGP is set aside. The petitioner shall exercise no control

whatsoever in respect of the investigation which is to be carried

out by the Special Investigation Team. Instead of and in place of 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 453

Sanjay Kundu v. Registrar General, High Court of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors

the direction of the High Court requiring the State Government

to consider constituting an SIT, we issue a direction to the State

Government to do so. The SIT shall consist of IG level officers who

shall not report to the petitioner for the purpose of the investigation.

The State Government is directed to provide adequate security to

the complainant and to the members of his family and to continue

to do so based on its evaluation of the threat perception. We clarify

that since the investigation is to be carried out by the SIT, we are

not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations which

shall be duly investigated in accordance with law.

38. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

39. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case: SLPs disposed of.

Whether sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute respondent No. 2 who faces accusation amongst others of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus a public servant. The competent authority has declined to grant sanction to prosecute. High Court has held that in the absence of such sanction, respondent No. 2 cannot be prosecuted and consequently has quashed the complaint as well as the chargesheet, giving liberty to the appellant to assail denial of sanction to prosecute respondent No. 2 in an appropriate proceeding, if so advised.

* Author

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 429 : 2024 INSC 42

Shadakshari

v.

State of Karnataka & Anr.

(Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2024)

17 January 2024

[Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration

Whether sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute

respondent No. 2 who faces accusation amongst others of

creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a

Village Accountant, thus a public servant. The competent authority

has declined to grant sanction to prosecute. High Court has held

that in the absence of such sanction, respondent No. 2 cannot

be prosecuted and consequently has quashed the complaint as

well as the chargesheet, giving liberty to the appellant to assail

denial of sanction to prosecute respondent No. 2 in an appropriate

proceeding, if so advised.

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Sanction under –

Appellant-complainant lodged an FIR alleging that respondent

no.2 and another were irregularly creating documents of

property in the name of dead person despite knowing the fact

those were fake documents – The High Court observed that

respondent no.2 was a public servant – The offence complained

against him, as per prosecution, was committed while

discharging his duties as a public servant – Sanction sought

by the investigating officer was denied – Consequently, the

High Court held that since sanction was refused, prosecution

for criminal offence against public servant cannot continue

– Propriety:

Held: It is settled that s.197 Cr.P.C. does not extend its protective

cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in

service – It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are

done by public servants in the discharge of official duties – The 

430 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

question whether respondent No.2 was involved in fabricating

official documents by misusing his official position as a public

servant is a matter of trial – Certainly, a view can be taken

that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records

cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant – If that

be the position, the High Court was not justified in quashing the

complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety, more so

when there are two other accused persons besides respondent

No.2 – There is another aspect of the matter – Respondent

No.2 had unsuccessfully challenged the complaint in an earlier

proceeding u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. – Though liberty was granted by the

High Court to respondent No.2 to challenge any adverse report

if filed subsequent to the lodging of the complaint, instead of

confining the challenge to the chargesheet, respondent No.2

also assailed the complaint as well which he could not have

done – The High Court erred in quashing the complaint as well

as the chargesheet in its entirety. [Paras 23, 25]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 197 – Ambit, scope

and effect of:

Held: The object of such sanction for prosecution is to protect a

public servant discharging official duties and functions from undue

harassment by initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings. [Para 19]

Case Law Cited

State of Orissa Vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew, [2004] 3

SCR 504:(2004) 8 SCC 40; D. Devaraja Vs. Obais

Sanders Hussain, [2020] 6 SCR 453:(2020) 7 SCC

695 – relied on.

A.Srinivasulu v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

[2023] 10 SCR 11: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 900 –

distinguished.

Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, [2013] 14

SCR 713:(2014) 2 SCC 1; Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs

State of U.P., [1997] 2 SCR 1139:(1997) 5 SCC 326

– referred to.

List of Acts

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 197.

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 431

Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

List of Keywords

Public servant; Fabrication of record; Discharge of official

duties; Sanction; Protective cover to act or omission by

public servant.

Case Arising From

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 256

of 2024.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2020 of the High Court of

Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRP No.4998 of 2020.

Appearances for Parties

C. B. Gururaj, Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Animesh Dubey, T. G. Ravi,

Advs. for the Appellant.

D. L. Chidananda, Rahul Kaushik, Anil C Nishani, V Murnal, Krishna

M Singh, Rajivkumar, Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Challenge made in this appeal is to the order dated 25.11.2020

passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal

Petition No.4998 of 2020 (Sri. Mallikarjuna Vs. State of Karnataka)

quashing the complaint dated 19.12.2016 lodged by the appellant;

the chargesheet in C.C. No.116 of 2018 including the order dated

28.03.2018 passed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Belur.

3. Facts lie within a very narrow compass. The appellant as the

complainant lodged a first information report dated 19.12.2016

(referred to as ‘the complaint’ in the impugned order) alleging that

respondent No.2 and another were irregularly creating documents of

property in the name of dead person despite knowing the fact that

those were fake documents, such as, death certificate, family tree

of the original successor of land of the appellant etc. for illegal gain.

The said first information was received and registered by Haleebedu 

432 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Police Station, Belur as Crime No. 323/2016 under Sections 409,

419, 420, 423, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 473 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 149 and Section 34 thereof.

4. It may be mentioned that respondent No.2 is working as Village

Accountant, Kirigdalu Circle in the district of Hassan, Karnataka State.

5. Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) for quashing of the said FIR before

the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (‘High Court’ for short).

The same was registered as Criminal Petition No.9580 of 2017.

5.1 The High Court in its order dated 05.01.2018 noted that the

specific case of the appellant was that land admeasuring 1 acre

13 guntas in survey No.7/6 situated at Chattanahalli Village,

Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District belonged to

the appellant and his family members. The same was given

to accused No.1 for the purpose of cultivation. Accused No.1

in collusion with revenue officials including accused No.2

(respondent No.2 herein) created lot of fake documents in favour

of respondent No.1. High Court vide the order dated 05.01.2018

observed that there were specific and serious allegations against

respondent No.2 even as to creation of death certificate of a

living person. It was observed that a reading of the FIR made

out a case for investigation and that it was too premature to

interfere with such FIR. Adverting to the case of Lalita Kumari

Vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, the High Court did

not interfere though granted liberty to respondent No.2 to seek

his legal remedy in the event any adverse report was made.

6. Sub Inspector of Police, Haleebedu Police Station, who was the

investigating officer submitted final report under Section 173 of the

Cr.PC in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belur on 20.03.2018 which was

registered as chargesheet No.12/2018. The following persons have

been named as accused in the chargesheet:

i. Accused No.1 - Ramegowda

ii. Accused No.2 - Mallikarjuna (respondent No.2)

iii. Accused No.3 - Manjunath Aras

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 433

Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

They have been charged under Sections 471, 468, 467, 465, 420,

409, 466 and 423 read with Section 34 of IPC. The chargesheet

also mentions the names of thirty-one witnesses.

7. As per the chargesheet, the deceased husband of witness No.2

Somashekharappa had permitted his deceased younger brother

Thumbegowda to use the subject land for cultivation about 40-50

years ago. After the death of Thumbegowda, his son i.e. accused

No.1 was cultivating the subject land. During the year 1993,

Somashekharappa died but accused No.1 in collusion with accused

No. 2 (respondent No.2) created a fake certificate of death to the

effect that Somashekharappa had died during the year 2010.In this

fake document, father of the deceased Thumbegowda was mentioned

as Somashekharappa instead of Sannasiddegowda. By creating such

fake document, the accused sought to make illegal gain.

8. Respondent No.2 again approached the High Court by filing a petition

under Section 482Cr.PC for quashing the complaint dated 19.12.2016

as well as the chargesheet and the order dated 28.03.2018 (what is

the order dated 28.03.2018 has not been mentioned by respondent

No.2). It may be mentioned that upon the chargesheet being filed

in the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belur, the same was registered as

C.C. No.116 of 2018. The quash petition of respondent No.2 was

registered as Criminal Petition No.4998 of 2020. The High Court

observed that respondent No.2 was a public servant. The offence

complained against him, as per the prosecution, was committed while

discharging his duties as a public servant. Investigating officer had

sought for sanction to prosecute respondent No.2 but sanction was

denied. In such circumstances, High Court held that since sanction

was refused, prosecution for criminal offence against a public servant

cannot continue. Consequently, the complaint, the chargesheet as

well as the order dated 28.03.2018 were set aside by the High Court

vide the order dated 25.11.2020.

9. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant as the appellant has instituted

the present proceeding.

10. This court by order dated 15.05.2023 granted permission to the

appellant to file special leave petition. After condoning the delay,

notice was issued.Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit.

On perusal of the counter affidavit of the second respondent this 

434 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

court in the proceedings held on 21.11.2023 noted that Annexure R-1

annexed to the said affidavit was a file noting recording the opinion

of some officers that it was not a fit case to accord sanction under

Section 197 Cr.PC to prosecute the second respondent. However, this

Court noticed that there was no decision of the competent authority

granting sanction. In such an eventuality, this Court directed the

State to file an affidavit dealing with the aspect of sanction and to

produce the relevant document.

11. Pursuant thereto respondent No. 1 i.e State of Karnataka has filed an

affidavit. The affidavit says that the investigating officer had written to

the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, on 22.01.2018 seeking sanction

to prosecute the village accountant Mallikarjun (Responsible No. 2).

It is further seen that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hassan

had informed the investigating officer vide letter dated 17.03.2018

that upon examination of the concerned file and considering the

opinion of the legal advisor, sanction for prosecution of respondent

No. 2 was not granted.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court was

not justified in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet

and the related cognizance order. He submits that no sanction to

prosecute was required qua respondent No. 2 as making of a fake

document cannot be said to be carried out by respondent No. 2 in

the discharge of his official duty. In support of his contention, he

has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Shambhoo Nath

Misra Vs State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 326.

13. Learned State counsel supports the contentions of the learned

counsel for the appellant.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 supports the

order of the High Court and submits that the High Court had rightly

quashed the complaint and the chargesheet. Without sanction to

prosecute a public servant the latter cannot be prosecuted. This is a

well-settled proposition and in this connection has placed reliance on

a decision of this Court in D. Devaraja Vs. Obais Sanders Hussain,

(2020) 7 SCC 695.

15. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received

the due consideration of this court. 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 435

Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

16. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether sanction

is required to prosecute respondent No. 2 who faces accusation

amongst others of creating fake documents by misusing his official

position as a Village Accountant, thus a public servant? The competent

authority has declined to grant sanction to prosecute. High Court

has held that in the absence of such sanction, respondent No. 2

cannot be prosecuted and consequently has quashed the complaint

as well as the chargesheet, giving liberty to the appellant to assail

denial of sanction to prosecute respondent No. 2 in an appropriate

proceeding, if so advised.

17. Section 197 Cr.PC deals with prosecution of judges and public

servants. Section 197 reads as under:

“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants:

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate

or a public servant not removable from his office save

by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of

any offence alleged to have been committed by him while

acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official

duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence

except with the previous sanction (save as otherwise

provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013) –

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the

case may be, was at the time of commission of the

alleged offence employed, in connection with the

affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the

case may be, was at the time of commission of the

alleged offence employed, in connection with the

affairs of a State, of the State Government:

[Provided that where the alleged offence was committed

by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period

while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article

356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause

(b) will apply as if for the expression “State Government”

occurring therein, the expression “Central Government”

were substituted.]

436 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

[Explanation — For the removal of doubts it is hereby

declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a

public servant accused of any offence alleged to have

been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section

354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section

354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, section

376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section

376DA, section 376DB or section 509 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860).]

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged

to have been committed by any member of the Armed

Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in

the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous

sanction of the Central Government.

(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct

that the provisions of Sub-Section (2) shall apply to such

class or category of the members of the Forces charged

with the maintenance of public order as may be specified

therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon

the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the

expression “Central Government” occurring therein, the

expression “State Government” were substituted.

[(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

(3), no Court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged

to have been committed by any member of the Forces

charged with the maintenance of public order in a State

while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his

official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued

under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in

force therein, except with the previous sanction of the

Central Government.]

[(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained

in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that

any sanction accorded by the State Government or any

cognizance taken by a Court upon such sanction, during

the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991

and ending with the date immediately preceding the date

on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act,

1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 437

Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

to an offence alleged to have been committed during the

period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of

article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State,

shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central

Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the

Court to take cognizance thereon.]

(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as

the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the

manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the

prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is

to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which

the trial is to be held.”

18. As per sub section (1) of Section 197 where any person who is or

was a judge or magistrate or a public servant not removable from his

office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of

any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or

purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall

take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction

of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case

may be.

19. The ambit, scope and effect of Section 197 Cr.PC has received

considerable attention of this court. It is not necessary to advert to

and dilate on all such decisions. Suffice it to say that the object of

such sanction for prosecution is to protect a public servant discharging

official duties and functions from undue harassment by initiation of

frivolous criminal proceedings.

20. In State of Orissa Vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40, this

court explained the underlying concept of protection under Section

197 and held as follows:

“7. The protection given under Section 197 is to protect

responsible public servants against the institution of

possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences

alleged to have been committed by them while they are

acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy

of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public

servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything

done by them in the discharge of their official duties without

reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on 

438 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete

control of the prosecution. This protection has certain limits

and is available only when the alleged act done by the

public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge

of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the

objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in

excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection

between the act and the performance of the official duty,

the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the

public servant of the protection. The question is not as

to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged

offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon

the offender being a public servant, but whether it was

committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act

as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before

Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the

official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to

have been committed by him while acting or purporting to

act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty

which requires examination so much as the act, because

the official act can be performed both in the discharge of

the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must

fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the

public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which

is important and the protection of this section is available if

the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty.

There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether

there is a reasonable connection between the act done

and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down any

such rule. One safe and sure test in this regard would

be to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of

the public servant to commit the act complained of could

have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction

of his official duty. If the answer to this question is in the

affirmative, it may be said that such act was committed

by the public servant while acting in the discharge of his

official duty and there was every connection with the act

complained of and the official duty of the public servant.

This aspect makes it clear that the concept of Section

197 does not get immediately attracted on institution of

the complaint case.”

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 439

Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

21. This aspect was also examined by this court in Shambhu Nath

Misra (supra). Posing the question as to whether a public servant

who allegedly commits the offence of fabrication of records or

misappropriation of public funds can be said to have acted in the

discharge of his official duties. Observing that it is not the official

duty to fabricate records or to misappropriate public funds, this court

held as under:

“5. The question is when the public servant is alleged

to have committed the offence of fabrication of record

or misappropriation of public fund etc. can he be said

to have acted in discharge of his official duties. It is not

the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the

false records and misappropriate the public funds etc. in

furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. The

official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record

or misappropriate the public fund etc. It does not mean

that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked

with the crime committed in the course of the same

transaction, as was believed by the learned Judge. Under

these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view

expressed by the High Court as well as by the trial court

on the question of sanction is clearly illegal and cannot

be sustained.”

22. Even in D. Devaraja (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for

respondent No. 2, this court referred to Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra)

and held as follows:

“35. In State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew [State of

Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40 : 2004

SCC (Cri) 2104] this Court interpreted the use of the

expression “official duty” to imply that the act or omission

must have been done by the public servant in course of

his service and that it should have been in discharge of his

duty. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does

not extend its protective cover to every act or omission

done by a public servant while in service. The scope of

operation of the section is restricted to only those acts or

omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge

of official duty.”

440 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

23. Thus, this court has been consistent in holding that Section 197

Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission

of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts

or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of

official duties.

24. After the hearing was over, learned counsel for respondent No.2

circulated a judgment of this Court in A. Srinivasulu Vs. State Rep.

by the Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 900 in support of

the contention that a public servant cannot be prosecuted without

obtaining sanction under Section 197 of Cr.PC. We have carefully

gone through the aforesaid decision rendered by a twoJudge Bench

of this Court in A. Srinivasulu(supra). That was a case where seven

persons were chargesheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation

(CBI) for allegedly committing offences under Section 120B read with

Sections 420, 468, 471 along with Sections 468 and 193 IPC read

with Sections 13 (2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act, 1988’). Four of the accused persons

being A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were officials of Bharat Heavy Electricals

Limited, a public sector undertaking and thus were public servants

both under the IPC as well as under the P.C. Act, 1988. Accused

No.1 had retired from service before filing of the chargesheet. Insofar

accused Nos. 3 and 4, the competent authority had refused to grant

sanction but granted the same in respect of accused No.1. It was in

that context that this court considered the requirement of sanction

under Section 197 Cr.P.C qua accused No.1 and observed that

accused No.1 could not be prosecuted for committing the offence

of criminal conspiracy when sanction for prosecuting accused Nos.3

and 4 with whom criminal conspiracy was alleged, was declined.

This court held as follows:

“52. It must be remembered that in this particular case,

the FIR actually implicated only four persons, namely

PW-16, A-3, A-4 and A-5. A-1 was not implicated in the

FIR. It was only after a confession statement was made

by PW-16 in the year 1998 that A-1 was roped in. The

allegations against A-1 were that he got into a criminal

conspiracy with the others to commit these offences. But

the Management of BHEL refused to grant sanction for

prosecuting A-3 and A-4, twice, on the ground that the

decisions taken were in the realm of commercial wisdom 

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 441

Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

of the Company. If according to the Management of the

Company, the very same act of the co-conspirators fell

in the realm of commercial wisdom, it is inconceivable

that the act of A-1, as part of the criminal conspiracy,

fell outside the discharge of his public duty, so as to

disentitle him for protection under Section 197(1) of

the Code.”

24.1 Admittedly, facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable

from the facts of A. Srinivasulu (supra) and, therefore, the said

decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.

25. The question whether respondent No.2 was involved in fabricating

official documents by misusing his official position as a public servant

is a matter of trial. Certainly, a view can be taken that manufacturing

of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the

official duty of a public servant. If that be the position, the High Court

was not justified in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet

in its entirety, more so when there are two other accused persons

besides respondent No.2. There is another aspect of the matter.

Respondent No.2 had unsuccessfully challenged the complaint in

an earlier proceeding under Section 482 Cr.PC. Though liberty was

granted by the High Court to respondent No.2 to challenge any

adverse report if filed subsequent to the lodging of the complaint,

instead of confining the challenge to the chargesheet, respondent No.2

also assailed the complaint as well which he could not have done.

26. That being the position, we are of the unhesitant view that the High

Court had erred in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet

in its entirety. Consequently, we set aside the order of the High Court

dated 25.11.2020 passed in Criminal Petition No. 4998/2020. We

make it clear that observations made in this judgment are only for

the purpose of deciding the present challenge and should not be

construed as our opinion on merit. That apart, all contentions are

kept open.

27. Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

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.