“We’re not contemplating imprisonment, but their physical presence here should facilitate the affidavit’s submission. They need to be here personally,” the bench asserted.
NEW DELHI: Today (11th July): The Supreme Court summoned the chief and finance secretaries of 16 states for failing to implement the Second National Judicial Pay Commission’s recommendations regarding arrears of pension and other retirement benefits for judicial officers.
In a statement, Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra emphasized their approach:
“We are adept at ensuring compliance. Mere mention of the chief secretary’s presence requirement won’t suffice for filing the affidavit.”
“We’re not contemplating imprisonment, but their physical presence here should facilitate the affidavit’s submission. They need to be here personally,”
the bench asserted.
The court emphasized its determination to ensure compliance, stating it would take decisive action if affidavits were not filed promptly. Despite multiple opportunities, several states have not fulfilled their obligations, prompting the court to schedule a hearing on August 23 for officials from states like Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal.
The bench expressed dissatisfaction with how state governments treat judicial officers compared to state civil service officers: Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, leading the bench, expressed strong dissatisfaction and warned against further delays.
“While we are cautious about requiring the personal presence of state officers, this situation highlights that executive administrative officers received revised payscales and allowances from January 1, 2016. In contrast, judicial officers have not received these updates, nor the arrears owed to them under the SNJPC despite eight years having passed.”
“Judges cannot be equated with administrative executives. They perform sovereign state functions akin to the Council of Ministers or the political executive. Their role differs from that of secretarial or administrative staff, who execute decisions made by the political executive. Judges are distinct from judicial staff and can be likened to the political executive and legislature.”
“The chief and finance secretaries must appear in person. Failure to comply may lead the court to initiate contempt proceedings,”
the bench emphasized.
According to the order, the bench summoned the top two bureaucrats from several states including Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Manipur, Odisha, and Rajasthan to appear before it on August 23.
The bench clarified that no further extensions would be granted. These directives were issued after considering submissions and reviewing a note provided by lawyer K Parmeswar, who serves as amicus curiae.
Parmeswar highlighted the issue of states deducting tax at source on allowances due to current and retired judicial officers under the Income Tax Act.
“Where exemptions are available under the Income Tax Act for such deductions, states must ensure no deductions are made. Incorrectly deducted TDS amounts must be refunded to the judicial officers,”
the bench directed.
The bench heard arguments regarding the compliance of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) by various states. It dismissed requests from states like West Bengal, Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, and Kerala seeking additional time to implement recommendations on arrears and other benefits for judicial officers.
The defaulting states were ordered to confirm compliance by August 20, with their chief secretaries and finance secretaries required to appear in person on August 23.
The bench rejected Assam’s strong plea for deferral citing floods and Delhi’s argument that it was awaiting central government approval.
“Our concern lies elsewhere. Resolve this with the Centre,”
remarked the Chief Justice.
In a previous ruling on January 10, the Supreme Court stressed the need for uniformity in service conditions for judicial officers nationwide. It mandated the formation of two-judge committees in each high court to oversee the implementation of pay, pension, and retirement benefits as per SNJPC recommendations.
The court expressed serious concern that while officers in other services had their service conditions revised from January 1, 2016, judicial officers still awaited a final decision after eight years. It noted that retired judges and families of deceased officers were also awaiting resolution.
SNJPC recommendations encompass the pay structure, pensions, family pensions, allowances, and the establishment of a permanent mechanism to determine service conditions for district judiciary members.
