Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/05/1999
BENCH:
Sujata V.Manchar, R.C.Lahoti
JUDGMENT:
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.
Respondent No.1, Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers
Association filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High
Court praying that the State of Rajasthan may be directed to
provide to the Judicial Officers of the State of Rajasthan a
dress allowance of Rs.10,665/- initially and thereafter a
kit maintenance allowance of Rs.400/- per month renewable
from time to time with all consequential benefits with
effect from 1.1.1993. The State Government had, by a
notification dated 18.9.1992, provided a dress allowance of
Rs.1500/- once in every three years, to the Members of the
Rajasthan Judicial Service and the Rajasthan Higher Judicial
Service with effect from 1.1.1993. Not being satisfied with
this allowance, the said writ petition was filed by the
respondents. There was also another factor which led to the
filing of the writ petition. In a similar writ petition
filed in the Delhi High Court (C.W.P.No.840 of 1992) by the
Delhi Judicial Services Association, the Delhi High Court
had by its judgment and order dated 18th of November, 1992,
directed that an initial lump sum amount of Rs.5,500/should
be paid to all Judicial Officers in Delhi and that there
should thereafter be paid every month a sum of Rs.300/- as
dress allowance. In view of this judgment of the Delhi High
Court, the respondents contended that the allowance granted
by the appellant-State by notification dated 18.9.1992 was
inadequate. The Rajasthan High Court has directed the
appellant-State to pay to all Judicial Officers of the
Rajasthan Judicial Service and the Rajasthan Higher Judicial
Service a lump sum amount of Rs.8,500/- towards dress
allowance and thereafter to pay Rs.300/- per month towards
the maintenance of the dress. The High Court also directed
the State to consider a revision of these allowances every
four years looking to the escalation in prices. The present
appeal is filed from the above judgment.
A Judicial Officer is undoubtedly required to dress in
the manner prescribed by the relevant Rules of each State in
order to maintain the dignity of his office. The reason why
a black jacket and bands are prescribed for a Judicial
Officer is quite different from the reason why a uniform is
prescribed for peons, chaprasis, police constables and so
on. The latter have to mix with the public and a uniform
identifies them as belonging to a specified group of persons
who have authority or duty to act in a certain way or
perform certain services. A Judicial Officer presides over
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
a court and is quite identifiable by reason of the position
he occupies in the court. Nevertheless, in order that there
may be a certain amount of decorum and dignity associated
with this office, he is expected to dress respectably in the
manner specified. Bands and gown are an insignia of his
office. But whether for this reason the High Court can, on
the judicial side, direct the State Government to pay a
dress allowance or to specify the exact amounts which the
State should pay by way of dress allowance is a matter which
we have to examine.
Under Article 235 of the Constitution the High Court
is invested with control over District Courts and courts
subordinate to it including the posting and promotion of and
the grant of leave to all Judicial Officers of the State.
Under Article 309, however, recruitment and conditions of
service of persons serving, inter alia, as Judicial Officers
of the State is to be controlled by appropriate legislation;
and until such legislation, the Governor of the State is
empowered to make rules regulating the recruitment and
conditions of service of Judicial Officers. In the present
case, in exercise of its powers under Article 309 the State
Government has fixed the salary and allowances of different
categories of Judicial Officers in the State of Rajasthan.
A dress allowance of Rs.1500/- every three years is one such
allowance fixed by the State of Rajasthan.
The respondents contend that this allowance is on the
lower side, and should be revised upwards by the High Court
on the judicial side by issuing a writ of mandamus. They
rely upon a decision of this Court in All India Judges’
Association v. Union of India & Ors. ([1992] 1 SCC 119)
where this Court gave various directions relating, inter
alia, to the age of retirement of Judicial Officers, for
providing a working library at the residence of every
Judicial Officer, for sumptuary allowance, residential
accommodation and a State vehicle for a District Judge. It
also recommended an In-service Training Institute being set
up at the Central and State or Union Territorial level. It
also recommended an All India Judicial Service and a
uniformity of designation of Judicial Officers in different
States. The directions which were given were based on the
perception of this Court that the essential judicial
functioning of the Judicial Officers of every State was
affected by a lack of certain basic amenities such as
residential accommodation, a working library or a vehicle at
the level of a District Judge. The retirement age
prescribed differently in different States, was also
perceived as requiring modification for efficient
functioning of the judicial service. But the question of
appropriate pay-scales of Judicial Officers, though raised
by the petitioners, was not considered by this Court since
it took the view that it was not equipped to do so. It left
this question to be considered by an appropriate Pay
Commission or Committee as and when set up in the States or
Union Territories. In dealing with pay-scales, this Court
noted that there was a wide variance in the pay structure
prevailing in the various States and Union Territories. It
was difficult on the basis of the data which was made
available to this Court, for it to undertake the exercise of
fixing the appropriate pay-scales. The Court, therefore,
declined to examine the propriety of the existing
pay-scales. The Court did, however, give directions
relating to a library for the Judicial Officers since this
was directly connected with proper performance of his duties
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
by a Judicial Officer and a sumptuary allowance looking to
the circumstances in which the district judiciary had to
function. While considering a review petition in the All
India Judges’ Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
([1993] 4 SCC 288) this Court recommended that the service
conditions of the Judicial Officers should be laid and
reviewed from time to time by an independent commission
exclusively constituted for the purpose. And the
composition of such commission should reflect an adequate
representation of the judiciary on the Commission. This was
recommended in lieu of the present practice of entrusting
the work of recommending the service conditions of the
members of the Subordinate Judiciary to the same Pay
Commission which recommends the service conditions of the
other services. The Court gave these directions as
essentially for the evolution of an appropriate national
policy in regard to the judiciary’s service conditions.
This Court once again explained why directions
regarding uniform pay-scales could not be given by the
Court. It said, "There was a wide variance in the pay
structure prevailing in different States and Union
Territories and in the absence of full details it was not
possible to fix appropriate pay-scales and hence a Pay
Commission or Committee should be set up to separately
examine and review the pay structure of Judicial Officers."
Dealing with library allowance it observed, (at page 308),
"By the judgment under review this Court had directed a
residential office-cum-library allowance to the subordinate
judges because law books were the essential tools of a
Judicial Officer. It was expected of the State to provide
every court with upto date text and commentaries on the
relevant statutes and law journals which report decisions of
the High Court and the Supreme Court for the use of the
judges and since the various State Governments had
consistently failed to provide this primary facility to the
courts, it became necessary for the court to direct the
payment of residential office-cum-library allowance." The
Court made it clear that this was essential for proper
performance of duties by the Judicial Officers. The
direction, however, to give sumptuary allowance to the
District Judge was deleted in the review judgment because
the Court’s attention was drawn to the facility available to
the District Judges to incur expenses for official meetings
from the funds at the disposal of the court.
In our view, any piecemeal determination of individual
allowances which go to form the total pay packet of a
judicial officer, by different High Courts by issuing writs
of mandamus would go counter to the very purpose of setting
up a National Judicial Pay Commission. It would also not be
appropriate for any High Court to give directions in its own
State regarding a particular allowance without examining the
relative conditions of Judicial Officers and the total pay
packets which are received by Judicial Officers in other
States.
Both these judgments which deal extensively with the
service conditions of Judicial Officers and their essential
requirements for functioning efficiently as such officers,
make no reference to a dress allowance. This Court left the
question of pay and allowances to be determined by an
appropriate Pay Commission or Committee. We are informed
that the first National Judicial Pay Commission which has
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
been constituted has, as one of its terms of reference, the
following:
"(b) To examine the present structure of emoluments
and conditions of service of Judicial Officers in the State
and Union Territories taking into account the total packet
of benefits available to them and make suitable
recommendations having regard, among other relevant factors,
to the existing relativities in the pay structure between
the officers belonging to the Subordinate Judicial Service
vis-a-vis other civil servants."
Constitutional discipline also requires that the
constitutional provisions must be followed by the High
Courts. Article 309 puts the responsibility of deciding
appropriate service conditions on the State. The concerned
High Courts can play an effective administrative role in
fixation of appropriate service conditions of judicial
officers when backed by recommendations of an expert Pay
Commission in which the judiciary has an important say. In
the present case, the appellant- State of Rajasthan has
pointed out that there is no uniformityg regarding the
granting of dress allowance and on kit maintenance allowance
admissible to the Judicial Officers in different States.
For example, in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamil
Nadu, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Kerala, Karnataka and Jammu &
Kashmir no such allowances are being paid at all. In the
States of Punjab and Haryana also no such allowances are
being paid although some Judicial Officers have filed a writ
petition in the High Court claiming such allowances. In the
State of Uttar Pradesh, Judicial Officers who are working in
the courts are allowed Rs.300/- per month towards purchase
of law books and maintenance of dress. In the State of
Orissa, Rs.1500/- as a lump sum amount is given to each
Judicial Officer in the rank of Munsiff, SDJM and Sub- Judge
once in a block of three years. While in West Bengal
Rs.500/- are allowed to the Judicial Officers once in two
years. No kit maintenance allowance is being paid to them.
In this context, therefore, there was no occasion for the
High Court to issue a writ of mandamus in the manner in
which it has done. The State of Rajasthan has also pointed
out that a number of Judicial Officers are working in
non-judicial posts. While so working, they are not required
to wear any specified dress.
Whether a separate allowance for dress should or
should not be granted also depends upon the total pay packet
of the officer, his rank and status in society and whether
in the context of his overall emoluments, it is necessary to
give him a separate allowance. Employees in Class IV are
normally given these allowances because their pay packets
are perceived as at the lowest levels. One cannot ipso
facto assume that the same logic will apply to Judicial
Officers until we have an overall examination of their
service conditions and a report from the National Judicial
Pay Commission. In the judgments which were cited, this
Court felt compelled to intervene only to ensure that proper
functioning of the judicial officers was not affected.
Unless the concerned service condition can be perceived as
seriously affecting proper discharge of judicial duties, the
High Court should not issue a mandamus directing the State
to pay certain amounts to the judicial officers.
Our attention was also drawn to the observations of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
this Court in M.P.Oil Extraction & Anr. v. State of M.P.
& Ors. ([1997] 7 SCC 592 at 611 para 41) to the effect that
the executive authority of the State must be held to be
within its competence to frame a policy for the
administration of the State. Unless the policy framed is
absolutely capricious and, not informed by any reason
whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary thereby
offending Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court should
not interfere with the policy decision of the executive. In
Mallikarjuna Rao & Ors. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
([1990] 2 SCC 707 at pages 713-714) also this Court has
observed that the Court should not require the executive to
exercise its rule-making power in any specific manner.
Neither of these cases, however, deals with service
conditions of judicial officers. In the present case,
looking to the parameters laid down by the Constitution and
all the above decisions, the quantum of dress allowance or
Kit maintenance allowance was not required to be determined
by the High Court in the manner in which it has done.
The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore,
cannot be sustained. It is, however, pointed out by the
appellants that in November, 1998, the State Government has
decided to increase the uniform allowance from the existing
rate of Rs.1500/- to Rs.3000/- in a block of three years.
Learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan has
also stated before us that the State will pay the increased
allowance as specified in its letter of 20.11.1998 addressed
to the Advocate-on- Record by the Principal Secretary to the
Government and issued by the Finance Department. The
appellants are directed to pay the uniform allowance of
Rs.3000/- in a block of three years accordingly.
The appeal is allowed with the above direction. There
will, however, be no order as to costs.