15. EVOLUTION OF NEW PAY SCALES

GENERAL BACKGROUND :

15.1 Hitherto the salary of the Judicial Officers was linked with that of the administrative executive which we may say was a historical accident. There was only one service in the State viz., Indian Civil Service for recruiting candidates for the Judicial as well as the Administrative Service. This practice was prevalent in the pre-independence era. During those days, there was no clear demarcation between the judicial and executive services and the same officers used to perform both judicial and executive functions. But after the promulgation of the Constitution of India, the judiciary has been separated from the executive. Consequently, the continuation of the linkage between the service conditions of the Judicial Officers and those of the administrative executives would be anachronistic and inconsistent.

15.2 The Supreme Court has made this point beyond doubt in stating that1

"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


1. (1993) 4 SCC 288 at 295.

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."

15.3 The Supreme Court went on to state :

"36. We have already discussed the need to make a distinction between the political and the administrative executive and to appreciate that parity in status can only be between Judges and the political executive, and not between Judges and the administrative executive. Hence the earlier approach of comparison between the service conditions of the Judges and those of the administrative executive has to be abandoned and the service conditions of the Judges which are wrongly linked to those of the administrative executive have to be revised to meet the special needs of the judicial service. Further, since the work of the judicial officers throughout the country is of the same nature, the service conditions have to be uniform."

15.4 The Commission is thus required to determine the uniform pay scales to three cadres of the Judicial Service. Since it is a virgin field and not a trodden ground, the Commission engaged the Services of a professional body viz., the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), New Delhi as the Consultant for the purpose.

15.5 IIPA has a distinguished and experienced faculty in the fields of Economics, Financial Management including Public Finance; Human Resources Development and Behavioural Studies; Management Studies, Public Enterprises and Computer Applications, Public Policy, Planning and Environmental Studies; Social Welfare Administration and Administration of Justice; Rural Studies; and Urban Studies.

15.6 The Commission gave the following terms of reference to the IIPA:

1. To analyse the existing pay structre and conditions of service of the Judicial Officers in the States and Union Territories.

2. To examine and compare the pay structure and conditions of service of the Subordinate Judicial Service with those of Civil Servants.

3. To evolve broad principles which should form the basis of determining the pay structure and other emoluments for the Subordinate Judiciary in the country.

4. To suggest a rational pay structure and other emoluments for the members of Subordinate Judiciary of the States and Union Territories.

15.7 Mr. M.C. Gupta, Director of the IIPA and his designated team, viz., Mr. O.P. Minocha and Prof. S.S. Singh, have taken a special interest in the study.

15.8 They, with the assistance of the Commission prepared and circulated a Questionnaire seeking the views and opinions from Judges and other persons of different walks of life across the country in respect of the above aspects. They have carefully studied their responses.

 

15.9 They have studied the existing pay structure and remuneration policies of Judges in England, Australia, USA and Malaysia. They have prepared a very useful report which has been submitted to the Commission on 13th August 1998.

15.10 The Report of IIPA consists of 5 Chapters.

15.11 Chapter 1 deals with the importance of judicial system.

15.12 Chapter 2 deals with the general principles governing the determination of pay structure, the retirement / superannuation arrangements, and other aspects of compensation. The purpose of the Chapter is to highlight as to how the pay structure helps in attracting competent persons, maintaining their morale and motivation and to retain such competent members of judiciary. The approach taken by all the previous five Central Pay Commissions has been discussed in this Chapter.

15.13 Chapter 3 deals with the international experience of judicial remuneration.

15.14 Chapter 4 gives an account of the discussion held by the IIPA with the members and the office-bearers of the Judges' Associations of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and others.

15.15 Chapter 5 deals with the approach taken by the IIPA to work out a rational pay structure.

15.16 The Report gives the personal profile of 200 Judges across the country whose views have been considered by the IIPA. The personal profile including their experience in judiciary, quantum of their work-load in terms of hours of work, their monthly expenditure and the criteria to determine the pay structure have been set out in six Tables. This is a very useful information giving the insight to the problem presented.

 

    1. For immediate reference, those Tables are hereunder extracted :

TABLE- 1 : Personal Profile of the Respondents

Designation

Number

Percentage

District Judge / Additional District Judge

80

40.0

Civil Judge (Senior)

74

37.0

Civil Judge (Junior)

46

23.0

Total

200

100.0

15.18 Out of the total respondents, majority (79.5%) have joined the service after obtaining their Law Degrees. Further, 20% had possessed post graduate degrees in Law. The details are given in Table - 2.

 

TABLE - 2 : Educational Background of the Respondents

Educational Qualification

Number

Percentage

LL.B., B.A.

159

79.5

LL.M.

11

5.5

M.A., LL.M.

29

14.5

Ph.D.

1

0.5

Total

200

100.0

 

15.19 Analysis of the experience in services of the respondents reveals that about 28% of them have got an experience of 15-20 years and another 15.5% have got more than 20 years experience. The respondents are fairly distributed in respect of their experience. Taking cognizance of the distribution of respondents in experience, we can conclude that the views of the judges are quite representative in character. The details are given in Table - 3.

 

Table - 3 : Experience of the Respondents

Experience (years)

Number

Percentage

31

31

15.50

5 - 10

44

22.00

10 - 15

38

19.00

15 - 20

56

28.00

20 - 25

31

15.50

Total

200

100.0

 

15.20 Analysis of the quantum of work load reveals that about 61% of the Judges spent about 5-7 hours and another 7% even more than 7 hours in the Court room. About 78% of the Judges, it is found that they spend 2-5 hours in preparing cases. Further, most of the Judges are required to spend considerable time after court hours and during holidays (21%) and 7-9 hours (8.5%) per day. All this demonstrates that Judges are required to spend long hours per day in discharging their duties. The details are given in Table - 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE - 4 : Quantum of Work-load in Terms of Hours of Work

Details

Number of hours

2 - 5

5 - 7

7 - 9

More than 7

NA

Rare

In the Court Room

64

(32%)

122

(61%)

14

(7%)

-

-

-

Preparation for hearing cases

156

(78%)

39

(19.5%)

3

(1.5%)

-

2

(1%)

-

After Court hours & during holidays

141

(70.5%)

42

(21%)

17

(8.5%)

-

-

-

Meetings & other official engagements

118

(59%)

1

(0.5%)

-

-

28

(14%)

53

(26.5%)

Total number of hours (on an average per day) which is required to keep updated with latest aspects of judicial profession

147

(73.5%)

25

(12.5%)

11

(5.5%)

16

(8%)

1

(0.5%)

-

 

 

 

15.21 In the context of expected standard of living all the j udges are required to spend a considerable amount on different items. About 16.5% of the judges are spending more than Rs.10,000/- per month and another 6.0% are spending more than Rs.12,000/- per month. However, majority of the judges (54%) are spending upto Rs.8,000/- per month on different items of their normal household activities. The details are given below :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table - 5 : Monthly Expenditure Profile of Judges

Monthly Expenditure (Rs.)

Number

Percentage

2000 - 4000

11

5.50

4000 - 6000

42

21.00

6000 - 8000

55

27.50

8000 - 10000

47

23.50

10000 - 12000

33

16.50

12000 & above

12

6.00

 

15.22 IIPA had asked the judges (respondents) to indicate the criteria that could be adopted for determining the pay structure to the judicial officers. Most of the judges have indicated that the 'nature of work' followed by the 'quantum of work' involved and morale of the judicial officers are the most important factors. The details of the criteria with ranking to determine the pay structure to the judicial officers is given in Table - 6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE - 6 : Criteria with Ranking to determine the Pay Structure - details regarding

Criteria

Ranks

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

Total

Equal pay for equal work

43

(21.5)

12

(6.0)

18

(9.0)

16

(8.0)

30

(15.0)

33

(16.5)

42

(21.0)

6

(3.0)

200

(100.0)

Model Employer

4

(2.0)

11

(5.5)

4

(2.0)

9

(4.5)

18

(9.0)

65

(32.5)

59

(29.5)

30

(15.0)

200

(100.0)

Social Responsibility

29

(14.5)

26

(13.0)

30

(15.0)

35

(17.5)

35

(17.5)

15

(7.5)

27

(13.5)

3

(1.5)

200

(100.0)

Capacity of the Govt. to pay

1

(0.5)

2

(1.0)

6

(3.0)

16

(8.0)

9

(4.5)

15

(7.5)

26

(13.0)

125

(62.5)

200

(100.0)

Nature of Work

75

(37.5)

35

(17.5)

24

(12.0)

42

(21.0)

15

(7.5)

4

(2.0)

3

(1.5)

2

(1.0)

200

(100.0)

Quantum of work involved

3

(1.5)

64

(32.0)

48

(24.0)

28

(14.0)

37

(18.5)

10

(5.0)

6

(3.0)

4

(2.0)

200

(100.0)

To retain the morale of judicial officers

38

(19.0)

53

(26.5)

35

(17.5)

21

(10.5)

21

(10.5)

19

(9.5)

9

(4.5)

4

(2.0)

200

(100.0)

Qualification

8

(4.0)

6

(3.0)

36

(18.0)

46

(23.0)

17

(8.5)

47

(23.5)

27

(13.5)

13

(6.5)

200

(100.0)

15.23 The Commission, in its turn, has issued a general Questionnaire with certain specific questions as to the nature of pay scales for Judicial Officers. We have taken into consideration the relevant responses received from the respondents, in addition to the very useful information furnished by the IIPA.

15.24 We have particularly borne in mind the pivotal role of Subordinate Judiciary, essential characteristics of judicial office, special qualifications required for recruitment, onerous duties and responsibilities of the post and personal sacrifice in terms of loneliness and general withdrawal from the community affairs made by Judicial Officers. We have taken into consideration the pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC and of those that have been accepted by the Central and State Governments and all other relevant principles which have bearing on the matter for determining the uniform pay structure to the three cadres in Judicial Service.

15.25 Before evolving the uniform pay scales, it is necessary to study the existing pay scales of different cadres in different States and Union Territories. They are set out hereunder:

Details of Existing Cadres and Pay Scales in different States / UTs.

State / UT

Cadre

Existing Pay Scale (Rs.)

1.

Andhra Pradesh

Junior Civil Judge 3880-130-4400-160-5200-190-6150-230-7300-280-8140
Special Grade

(after 8 years)

4140-130-4400-160-5200-190-6150-230-7300-280-8140
Special Promotion

(after 16 years)

5040-160-5200-190-6150-230-7300-280-8700
Senior Civil Judge 5040-160-5200-190-6150-230-7300-280-8700
District & Sessions Judge-Gr.II / CJM 7070-230-7300-280-10100
District & Sessions Judge-Gr.I 8140-280-10380

2.

Assam

Munsiff / Judicial Magistrate/ Sub-Divl.Judicial Magistrate

1835-50-2035-60-2395-80-2555- EB-80-2875-100-3575-125-4325

Asst. Dist. & Sessions Judge/ Chief Judicial Magistrate

3375-100-3575-125-4325-EB-125-4450-150-5200

Special Judge

3825-125-4450-150-5200-175-5900

District & Sessions Judge

3825-125-4450-150-5200-175-5900

Selection Grade :

3950-125-4450-150-5200-175-5900-200-6100

3.

Bihar

Munsiff / JMFC / JMSC

2425-75-2800-100-4000

After 10 years :

3000-100-3500-125-4500
CJM / Subordinate Judge / Sub-Divl.Judicial Magistrate 3000-100-3500-125-4500

Second level :

3700-125-4700-150-5000

Third level :

4500-150-5700

District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge

3700-125-4700-150-5000

Selection Grade :

4500-150-5700

Super Time Scale :

5900-200-6700

4.

Goa

Civil Judge (Jr. Branch) 2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Civil Judge (Sr. Branch) 3200-100-3500-125-4625
District & Sessions Judge 4500-150-5700

5.

Gujarat

Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) / JMFC 2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000(Pre-Revised)

8000-275-14050 (Revised)

Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) / CJM / Assistant Judge / Judge, SCC 3000-100-3500-125-4500

3000-100-3500-125-5000

(Pre-Revised)

10000-325-15200 (Revised)

District Judge 4100-125-5100-150-5700(Pre-Revised)

14300-400-18300 (Revised)

Judge, City Civil Court 5700 (Fixed) - (Pre-Revised)

18300 (Fixed) - (Revised)

Principal Judge 5900-200-6700 (Pre-Revised)

18400-500-22400 (Revised)

6.

Haryana

Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) / CJM / Judge (SCC) / Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)- cum-JM I & II Class 2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Senior Time Scale :

(after 5 years)

3000-100-3500-125-4500
Selection Grade :

(after 12 years)

4100-125-4850-150-5300
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge 3200-100-3700-125-4700-150-5600
Selection Grade : 5900-200-6700
7. Himachal Pradesh Sr. Sub-Judge-cum-CJM / Sub-Judge-cum-JMFC / CJM 2200-50-2400-60-2700-75-3000-100-4000
Sr. Scale (after 8 years) 3000-100-4000-125-4500
Seln.Grade (after 12 yrs.) 4125-125-5000-150-5600
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge 3000-100-4000-125-5000-150-5600
Seln.Grade (after 8 yrs.) 5000-100-5900-200-6700
8. Jammu & Kashmir Munsiff / Judicial Magistrate 2200-75-2800-EB-100-3800
Sub-Judge / CJM 3000-100-3500-125-4500
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge 3700-125-4700-150-5000
District & Sessions Judge (Selection Grade) 4500-150-6700
District & Sessions Judge

(Super Time Scale)

5100-150-6300
9. Karnataka Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) 2375-75-2900-100-3700-125-4450
Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) 3825-125-4700-150-5300-175-5825
District Judge 4700-150-5300-175-6000-200-6400
Super Time Scale 5825-175-6000-200-6800
10. Kerala Munsiff / Magistrate 2500-75-2800-100-4000
Sub-Judge / CJM 3900-125-4775-150-5075
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge 5100-150-5700
Dist. Judge (Seln. Grade) 5900-150-6500-200-6700
11. Madhya Pradesh Civil Judges - Junior Scale 2200-75-2800-100-4000
Civil Judges - Senior Scale 3000-100-3500-125-4500
Civil Judge - SG-cum-CJM 3700-125-4700-150-5000
District Judge

(Senior Time Scale)

3200-100-3700-125-4700
District Judge in Junior Adm. Grade 3950-125-4700-150-5000
District Judge (Selection Grade) 4800-150-5700
District Judge (Senior Time Scale) 5900-200-6700
District Judge (Above STS) 7300-100-7600
12. Maharashtra Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) / JMFC 2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) / CJM 3200-100-3500-125-4625
Addl. Dist. Judge / Judge, SCC / Addl.Chief Judge, SCC 3700-125-4700-150-5000
Dist. Judge/Chief Judge, SCC 4500-150-5700
Dist.Judge (Selection Grade) 5900-200-6700
Judge, City Civil Court 5400-150-6300-200-6500
Principal Judge, CCC / Addl. Principal Judge CCC 5900-200-6700
13. Manipur Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) / JMFC / JMSC 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) / CJM 3000-100-3500-125-4500
District & Sessions Judge 3700-125-4700-150-5000
14. Meghalaya Munsiff / Judicial Magistrate 2000-100-2500-EB-110-3050-120-3650-EB-125-4150
Asst. District & Sessions Judge / CJM 3500-125-4000-EB-135-4540-140-5100
District & Sessions Judge 3900-150-4650-EB-160-5450
15. Mizoram Munsiff / Judicial Magistrate 2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.)/JMFC 3000-100-3500-125-4500
Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) / CJM 3700-125-4700-150-5000
Special Judge 4500-150-5700
District & Sessions Judge 5100-150-6300-200-6700
16. Nagaland Judicial Magistrate II Class & Sub-Judge 2100-60-2760-70-3600-80-4000
JMFC & Sub-Judge / CJM 2900-100-3900-125-4900
Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge 3500-125-4250-140-5650
District & Sessions Judge 4500-150-5850-175-6200
17. Orissa Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) & Judicial Magistrate 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500
Sub-Divl. Judicial Magistrate 2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2800-100-3600-EB-125-4350
Chief Judicial Magistrate 3000-100-3500-125-4500
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge 3200-100-3700-125-4700
Selection Grade 4800-150-5700
Super Time Scale 5900-200-6700
18. Punjab Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)/CJM / Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum- JM I & II Class 2200-70-2550-75-3000-100-4000
Sr. Scale (after 8 years) 3000-100-4000-125-4500
Seln. Gr. (after 18 yrs.) 4125-125-5000-150-5600
District & Sessions Judge / Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge 3000-100-4000-125-5000-150-5600
Seln. Gr. (after 8 yrs.) 5000-150-5900-200-6700
19. Rajasthan Munsiff & JMFC 2200-75-2800-100-4000
Civil Judge-cum-JMFC 3000-100-3500-125-4500
Sr. Civil Judge-cum-JMFC 3700-125-4700-150-5000
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)-cum-CJM 4500-150-5700
District Judge / Addl. DJ 5100-150-5700-200-6300
Selection Grade : 5900-200-6700
20. Sikkim Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate 1820-60-2600-EB-75-3200
Sr. Scale (after 5 years) 2525-75-3200-100-4000
Seln. Gr. (after 10 yrs.) 3450-125-4700
Chief Judicial Magistrate 3450-125-4700
District & Sessions Judge 3200-100-3700-125-4700
21. Tamil Nadu Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) / JMFC 2500-75-2800-100-4200
Civil Judge (Senior Division) 3700-125-4700-150-5000
District Judge / Additional District Judge / CJM 4500-150-5700
District Judge (STS) 5100-150-5700
22. Tripura Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) / Judicial Magistrate 2100-75-2250-80-2490-85-3000-90-3720-95-4100-100-5000
Selection Time Scale (after 4 yrs.) 3000-90-3720-95-4100-100-5000
Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) 3600-130-4900-150-5800
Dist. & Sessions Judge / CJM 4000-140-4700-150-5900
Selection Grade : 5900-200-6700
23. Uttar Pradesh Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) / JMFC 2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000
After 5 years : 3000-100-3500-125-4500
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) / CJM 3000-100-3500-125-4500
Seln. Gr. (20% of posts) 3700-125-4700-150-5000
District & Sessions Judge / Additional D & S Judge 5100-150-6300
Super Time Scale 5900-200-6700
Selection Grade 5900-200-6700
24. West Bengal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) / JMFC 2200-80-3000-100-4000
After 6 years : 3000-100-3500-125-4750
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) / SDJM 3000-100-3500-125-4750
After 13 years 3700-125-4950-150-5700
Dist. & Sessions Judge / CMM 3200-100-3700-125-4700 (Pre-revised)

10650-325-15850 (Revised)

After 5 years : 3950-125-4700-150-5000 (Pre-revised)

12750-375-16500 (Revised)

S G (After 9 years) : 4800-150-5700 (Pre-revised)

15100-400-18300 (Revised)

Super Time Scale 5900-200-6700 (Pre-revised)

18400-500-22400 (Revised)

Above Supertime Scale: 7300-100-7600 (Pre-revised)

22400-525-24500 (Revised)

25. Delhi Civil Judge / Sr. Civil Judge 2200-75-2800-EB-100-4000 (Pre-revised)

8000-275-13500 (Revised)

Sr. Time Scale (after 5 yrs.) 3000-100-3500-125-4500 (Pre-revised)

10000-325-15200 (Revised)

S G (after 8 years) : 3700-125-4700-150-5000 (Pre-revised)

12000-375-16500 (Revised)

Dist. & Sessions Judge / CMM 5100-150-5700-200-6300 (Pre-revised)

16400-450-20000 (Revised)

Selection Grade 5900-200-6700 (Pre-revised)

18400-500-22400 (Revised)

Super Time Scale : 5900-200-6700 (Pre-revised)

18400-500-22400 (Revised)

26. Pondicherry Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) / JMFC 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500

(Pre-revised)

6500-200-10500 (Revised)

Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) / CJM 3000-100-3500-125-4500 (Pre-revised)

10000-325-15200 (Revised)

Dist. Judge / Sessions Judge 3000-100-3500-125-5000 (Pre-revised)

10000-325-15200 (Revised)

27. Lakshadweep Munsiff-cum-JMFC 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500
District Judge 4500-150-5700
Note : Since then some of the State Governments have revised their pay scales. However the same information has not been furnished by the High Courts / State Governments.

15.26 It will be seen that there is a wide variance in the pay structures prevailing in the various States and Union Territories. The Judicial Officers performing the same or similar nature of work are remunerated differently. We have to remove this incongruity by evolving a uniform/common pay scale, cadre-wise, to Judicial Officers in every State and Union Territory.

15.27 While evolving a pay scale to any cadre of service, it is necessary to bear in mind the length of the time scale, the period and the rate of increment, the ratio, if any, between the minimum and maximum or such other parameter of the pay scale and the desirability of introducing an 'Efficiency Bar'.

15.28 Instead of fixed pay scales, we have opted for the telescopic scales to Judicial Officers. The telescopic pay scales are preferable for the reason that experience in a lower cadre itself is a qualification for promotion to the higher cadre. This principle is also implicit in the recruitment rules of any cadre. Promotion, however, is not always definite or certain. It depends upon the various circumstances such as strength of cadre and the relative age group of persons in the cadre. There must, therefore, be a mechanism to provide a pay scale to the person in the lower cadre, which may correspond at least to the lower reaches of the scale prescribed for promotional cadre. This is in conformity with the principle that an Officer in the lower cadre is generally entrusted with more responsible work after some years of experience, and that responsibility may be near or more than that of the higher post. In such situation, the Officer should be suitably rewarded for such responsible work.

15.29 These aspects could be worked out only when we prepare a Master Pay Scale before determining the different pay scales. Hence, we have, at the first instance, gone for the Master Pay Scale.

15.30 The advantages of the Master Pay Scale are manifold. Some of them may be stated as under :

(i) The pay scale would be telescopic in nature;

(ii) In the hierarchy of cadres of posts, the bottom of the lowest of any level of the pay scale admissible to any cadre, would dip into a part of the range of the immediately next below scale. (This kind of pay scale is intended to reward the experienced Officers in the lower cadre languishing without promotion.);

(iii) It has convenient inbuilt incremental structure which would be the basis for working out the other pay scales;

(iv) The Officers who have reached a particular stage of pay would get the same increment, irrespective of the pay scale attached to their posts;

(v) The different segments of the Master Pay Scale could be formed into different pay scales according to the requirements.

15.31 The Master Pay Scale evolved by the Commission is as follows:

Rs. 9000-250-10750-300-13150-350-15950-400-19150-450-21850- 500-24850.

15.32 The Master Pay Scale has got a total span of 44 stages, the details of which are set out below:

Pay stages

1. 9000 23. 15600
2. 9250 24. 15950
3. 9500 25. 16350
4. 9750 26. 16750
5. 10000 27. 17150
6. 10250 28. 17550
7. 10500 29. 17950
8. 10750 30. 18350
9. 11050 31. 18750
10. 11350 32. 19150
11. 11650 33. 19600
12. 11950 34. 20050
13. 12250 35. 20500
14. 22550 36. 20950
15. 12850 37. 21400
16. 13150 38. 21850
17. 13500 39. 22350
18. 13850 40. 22850
19. 14200 41. 23350
20. 14550 42. 23850
21. 14900 43. 34350
22. 15250 44. 24850

 

NUMBER OF SCALES IN MASTER PAY SCALE :

15.33 Broadly speaking, the number of pay scales should be equal to the number of clearly identifiable levels of responsibilities. The identifiable levels in our Judicial Service are three, viz., (i) Civil Judge (Junior Division); (ii) Civil Judge (Senior Division); and (iii) District Judge.

15.34 Primarily, we have to therefore evolve three pay scales. But, since we have decided to give Assured Career Progression Scales to the first two cadres and Selection Grade Pay Scale and Super Time Pay Scale to the third cadre, we have to prepare 7 (seven) pay scales in all.

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OF THE REVISED PAY SCALES :

15.35 While fixing the minimum of the Master Pay Scale, we have looked into the pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC to the All India Service Officers at the entry level. We have also considered the qualification perscribed for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division); consequently, their late entry into the service.

15.36 Taking all these and other relevant factors, we have fixed Rs.9,000/- as the Minimum of the Master Pay Scale.

15.37 As to the maximum in the Master Pay Scale, we have to bear in mind that in no circumstances, the District Judge shall get more than the pay of the High Court Judge. That is the vertical cap. Taking this aspect into consideration, we have fixed a maximum of Rs.24,850/- in the Master Pay Scale.

15.38 Accordingly, the following three primary Pay Scales have been determined, cadre-wise :

CIVIL JUDGES (JR. DIVN.) : Rs.9000-250-10750-300-13150- 350-14550

CIVIL JUDGES (SR. DIVN.) : Rs.12850-300-13150-350-15950- 400-17550

DISTRICT JUDGES : Entry Level - Rs.16750-400-19150- 450-20500

 

15.39 We have also determined the Assured Career Progression Scheme for Civil Judges (Jr. Divn.) and Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) as follows :

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :

I Stage : Rs. 10750-300-13150-350-14900

II Stage : Rs. 12850-300-13150-350-15950-400-17550

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :

I Stage : Rs. 14200-350-15950-400-18350

II Stage : Rs. 16750-400-19150-450-20500

15.40 It may be noted that the II Stage ACP for Civil Judge (Junior Division) is the Pay scale of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the II Stage ACP for the Civil Judge (Senior Division) is the entry level pay scale of the District Judge.

15.41 So far as the other pay scales to the District Judge are concerned, we have recommended Selection Grade Scale of Rs.18750-400-19150-450-21850-500-22850 and Super Time Scale of Rs.22850-500-24850.

15.42 We have not provided any 'Above Super Time Scale' to the District Judges, though such pay scales are provided presently in Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. Both the States have adopted IAS Pay Rules to the Higher Judicial Service in their States and consequently, the 'Above Super Time Scale' of Rs.22400-525-24500 has been provided to the senior-most District Judges who happen to be only a fortunate few.

15.43 But our recommended Selection Grade and Super Time Scale would benefit a large number of District Judges in all States and UTs. We have recommended 25% of the cadre posts of District Judges who have put in not less than five years of service in the cadre be given the said Selection Grade Scale and they shall be called Selection Grade District Judges. We have also recommended that 10% of the Selection Grade District Judges who have put in not less than three years of service as Selection Grade District Judges be allowed Super Time Scale of pay.

15.44 Both these scales would be given by selection on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.

15.45 It may be noted that our Selection Grade Scale is apparently superior to the existing Super Time Scale of the District Judges in the said two States. Besides, the opening point and the end point in our Super Time Scale are also relatively higher than those of their 'Above Super Time Scale'.

15.46 We have also taken care to protect the interests of such of those District Judges in those two States who are in the 'Above Super Time Scale' by appropriately giving them the benefit of fixation.

    1. For better understanding, we have set out below a Table and Chart indicating the mean of basic pay of the proposed scale to each cadre of Judicial Officers with reference to the pay of the High Court Judges and the Supreme Court Judges :

TABLE

Category of Judges

Monthly Mean Pay (in Rs.)

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

11,775

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

15,200

District Judge (Entry Level)

18,625

District Judge (Selection Grade)

20,800

District Judge (Super Time Scale)

23,850

Judge of the High Court

26,000 (Fixed)

Chief Justice of the High Court

30,000 (Fixed)

Judge of the Supreme Court

30,000 (Fixed)

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

33,000 (Fixed)

 

15.48 It may be seen from the aforesaid Table and Chart that the mean of the basic pay of Civil Judges (Junior Division), Civil Judges (Senior Division), District Judges (Entry Level), District Judges (Selection Grade) and District Judges (Super Time Scale) works out respectively at 42.3%, 58.5%, 71.6%, 80% and 91.7% of the salary of the High Court Judges.

15.49 In the same Chart, it may be seen that the mean of the basic pay of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) works out at 49.4% and 63.7% of the mean basic pay of the District Judges (Super Time Scale).

15.50 We further recommend that in case the salary of the High Court Judges is revised upward at any time, the pay scales of the Judicial Officers in all the aforesaid cadres, should also be suitably revised upward by maintaining the said respective ratios.

RATE OF INCREMENT :

15.51 We have examined the granting of increment as a percentage of basic pay, but we find that such a system is operationally inconvenient. We have, therefore, adopted the system of fixed-quantum increments while evolving the Master Pay Scale.

15.52 We may also say a few words as to why we have adopted a particular rate of increment or increments in the Master Pay Scale.

15.53 Increment is a periodical increase given to employees, mainly for three reasons :

i) It is a credit to the experience gained and for better quality and quantity of work;

ii) The domestic responsibilities of employees generally increase as they grow and the increment would meet such contingency;

iii) The annual increment itself serves as an incentive to employees for putting forward sustained effort in their work.

15.54 The rate of increment in any scale would depend on its minimum, maximum and the time span. Other considerations for fixing the rate of increments would be : (a) incremental rates in the existing pay structures, and (b) price escalation in recent years especially since 1986 when most of the State Governments revised the salary structure to their employees, which was also extended to the Judicial Officers.

15.55 It is common knowledge that short time-span would give rise to complaints of stagnation, while longer time-span results in very slow increases in the pay. To avoid these two extremes, we consider that six incremental rates would be proper and ideal.

EFFICIENCY BAR :

15.56 The system of Efficiency Bar was in vogue earlier. But such a system did not serve the purpose for which it was intended. It has been observed in the past that the majority of the officials are allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar as a matter of course with little or no effective consideration of the objectives of such assessment.

15.57 It is also complained that the assessment on efficiency of an officer is likely to be based on personal prejudices and predilections. It is also stated that the Efficiency Bar has been used as an instrument of oppression on an officer who does not toe the line of his superior.

15.58 Having considered all these aspects, we are of the view that the 'Efficiency Bar' should be dispensed with. Indeed, every Association of Judicial Officers and even some High Courts are not for the system of 'Efficiency Bar'.

15.59 The supervisory power of the High Court is so vast that it could be effectively utilised by other means to deal with the incompetent, dishonest, inefficient and negligent officers. Therefore, we have not provided any 'Efficiency Bar' in any scale.

 

 

 

PRINCIPLES OF FIXATION OF PAY IN THE PAY SCALES RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION

    1. The Commission in its Report dated 31.01.1998 has allowed interim relief to Judicial Officers of different States/UTs in varying terms to bring about near parity in the emoluments drawn by them. The interim relief allowed was ranging from 35% to 75% as per the details given below :
 

Name of the State / UT

Percentage on Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance of each Judicial Officer as on 1st January 1996

1.

Andhra Pradesh

35%

2.

Assam

75%

3.

Bihar

35%

4.

Haryana

40%

5.

Himachal Pradesh

40%

6.

Jammu & Kashmir

40%

7.

Karnataka

35%

8.

Kerala

35%

9.

Maharashtra

40%

10.

Manipur

40%

11.

Meghalaya

40%

12.

Mizoram

40%

13.

Nagaland

40%

14.

Orissa

40%

15.

Punjab

40%

16.

Rajasthan

40%

17.

Sikkim

45%

18.

Tamil Nadu

35%

19.

Tripura

40%

20.

Uttar Pradesh

40%

21.

West Bengal

55% - To the Officers of the Subordinate Judicial Service only.

15.61 The Commission gave the interim relief to Judicial Officers in such of the States/UTs where the benefits of the pay scales recommended by 5th CPC were not extended, because, the then object of allowing interim relief was to raise the emoluments of the beneficiaries approximately to the level of the pay scales of the 5th CPC.

15.62 We have since evolved the new pay scales to different cadres, which are termed as "our revised pay scales".

15.63 It may at once be stated that our revised pay scales are indeed better than the existing pay scales at various levels in every State, and it is, therefore, necessary to fix the existing incumbents in our revised pay scales.

15.64 We may, in this context, refer to the method adopted by the earlier Pay Commissions, both at the Centre and States, for fixation of pay whenever the new pay scales are determined. They are generally of the following two types:

(i) giving a uniform percentage increase to all; and

(ii) giving varying percentage of basic pay or varying quantum increase depending upon the length of service put in.

15.65 In certain Public Sector Undertakings, the concept of point to point fixation is also in vogue.

15.66 The formula of giving varying quantum increases depending upon the length of service confers equal benefit to all employees within each of the 'service-length groups' and, therefore, leads to clubbing of pay stages thereby equalising the junior and senior which causes resentment in the latter.

15.67 The formula of the 'point to point fixation' implies that the pay of an Officer should be fixed in the revised scale at a stage which represents the same number of increments which he had earned in the pre-revised scale. It may in effect amount to counting the entire service rendered by him in the pre-revised scale as having been rendered in the revised scale. The application of this formula of point to point fixation would lead to an anomalous situation to Officers drawing the same basic pay in different existing scales being fixed at different stages in the corresponding revised scales. This may defeat the very purpose of evolving a 'Master Pay Scale' which is based on the principle that all Officers at the same pay stage should get the same increment.

15.68 But giving a certain percentage of Basic Pay as an additionality to all Officers seems to be better as it spreads the advantage evenly among all the Officers. The procedure is also simple since the benefit is given on a percentage basis, and the service of an Officer reflected in the increments earned also gets a weightage. This formula inevitably gives weightage to the length of service of the Officer because the stage which he occupies in the existing scale reflects the length of his service. We would, therefore, like to adopt this formula.

15.69 Before we apply the said formula, it is necessary to determine the effective date on which the pay scales are to be given effect to.

EFFECTIVE DATE :

15.70 The Judicial Officers in UTs and in certain other States are already given the benefits of the pay scales of 5th CPC with effect from 1-1-1996.

15.71 Some Associations of Judicial Officers have stated that we should give the benefit of our revised pay scales with effect from the date of the original judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association Case. Some others are asking that it should be given at least from the date of the Review Judgment of the Supreme Court in that case. Likewise, the different Officers have made different demands.

15.72 The "effective date" should not be pick and choose. It should not be arbitrarily selected. It must have a nexus to the object of giving the revised pay scales. It should be uniform regard being had to the effective date on which some States have already implemented the pay scales of the 5th CPC. It should also be in conformity with such date applied to Civil Servants in general to avoid heart burning.

15.73 The Central Government servants and employees of certain State Governments have been given the benefit of the pay scales of 5th CPC with effect from 1-1-1996.

15.74 Our Commission was constituted on 21-3-1996. We commenced working only at the fag end of December 1996.

15.75 We have given Interim Relief to Judicial Officers with effect from 1-7-1996. The interim relief was confined to those Officers who are not given the benefit of pay scales recommended by 5th CPC.

15.76 We have structured our revised pay scales at 1510 AICPI level by merging the entire D.A. admissible as on 1-1-1996.

15.77 We have to, therefore, strike a balance amongst the aforesaid dates.

15.78 We consider that it is not proper to relate back the effective date to the date of judgment of the Supreme Court. Nor it is just to limit it to the date from which the interim relief has been given, though ordinarily it should be the date.

15.79 Since some of the States and the Union Territories have already given the Central pay scales to our Judicial Officers with effect from 1-1-1996, it would be necessary for us to determine the effective date for our revised pay scales as on 1-1-1996 notwithstanding the fact that the interim relief has been given with effect from 1-7-1996.

15.80 We, however, make it clear that only notional benefit would be worked out from 1-1-1996, without giving the actual financial benefit flowing therefrom. The actual monetary benefit shall be given only with effect from 1-7-1996.

15.81 We may also make it clear that the benefit of other allowances which we have recommended be given with effect from 1-11-1999, the date which we have fixed since we are presenting these Reports in November 1999.

15.82 Needless to state that the Interim Relief as such shall cease to be operative since it has been included while evolving the new pay structure.

15.83 This takes us to the methodology of the fitment formula.

15.84 As earlier indicated, we have preferred the method of giving certain percentage of Basic Pay as an additionality to all Officers. This should be so whether they are covered by the respective State Government scales or 5th CPC scales.

15.85 Taking all these factors into consideration, we are of opinion that another 10% of Basic Pay should be the basis for working out the fixation level in our revised scales. This should be in addition to the interim relief already granted by the Commission or the adoption of 5th CPC scales by some States/UTs with effect from 1-1-1996.

15.86 We are conscious of the fact that this method of fixation may not give uniform consequential benefits to Judicial Officers. It is inevitable. It is impossible to provide equal consequential benefits to each cadre with mathematical precision in view of the fact that the existing pay scales of Judicial Officers in every cadre vary from State to State. That is because of the implementation of the pay scales of the 5th CPC by some States/UTs, while giving effect to our interim relief on varying terms by other States.

 

 

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS :

15.87 Taking all these factors into consideration, we recommend the following procedure for fixation of pay in our revised scales :

i) A Judicial Officer shall first be given a financial benefit of 10% over his basic pay as on 1-1-1996 in his existing pay scale.

ii) Then, compute the aggregate emoluments of the Officer as on 1-1-1996 in the following manner :

a) Basic pay in the existing scale as on 1-1-1996 plus 10% thereon.

b) Dearness Allowance admissible on the original Basic Pay on 1st January 1996 at AICPI level of 1510 (1960=100).

* c) Amounts of interim relief admissible (As recommended by this Commission).

iii) After the aforesaid calculations, the pay of the Officer in our revised scale shall be fixed as follows :

a) If the aggregate of the present emoluments as aforesaid computed is less than the minimum of the revised scale, then, it should be at the minimum of our revised scale;


* We have not given Interim Relief with effect from 1-1-1996. We have confined it only with effect from 1-7-1996. Since we propose to evolve the new pay structure with reference to 1-1-1996, it has become necessary to determine the aggregate emoluments inclusive of the interim relief. The interim relief is, therefore, taken into consideration notionally.

b) if the aggregate of the present emoluments so computed corresponds to a stage in our revised scale, at that stage of the revised scale;

c) if the aggregate of the present emoluments so computed is intermediate between two stages in the revised scale, then at the higher of the two stages; and

d) if the aggregate of the present emoluments so computed is more than the maximum of the revised scale, then at the maximum of the revised scale and the difference, if any, be treated as personal pay.

15.88 In fixing pay on the revised scale, following factors should also be taken into account :

a) In case, an Officer drawing pay in the pre-revised scale (existing scale), equal to or less than that of his senior/seniors in the same cadre and similarly appointed, draws his next increment in the revised scale on the date earlier than such senior/seniors whereby his pay is raised to a stage higher than that of such senior/seniors, the date of next increment of the senior/seniors shall be advanced to the date on which the junior officer draws his next increment;

b) In case, an Officer promoted to a higher post before 1-1-1996 draws less pay in the revised scale than his junior shall be advanced to an amount equal to the pay fixed for his junior in the higher post, from the date of promotion of the junior.

15.89 These benefits, one or the other, shall be extended, if the anomaly which we have indicated is the direct consequence of the application of the fixation principles enunciated by us.

15.90 This takes us to fixation of pay for those who are now enjoying the benefit of the 5th CPC scales. It may be noted that the 5th CPC scales have also been pegged at 1510 AICPI level as on 1-1-1996. 5th CPC had recommended 20% fixation benefit of basic pay. But the Government has allowed 40% fixation benefit while implementing, in the following manner :

a) Basic Pay as on 1-1-1996

b) D.A. as on 1-1-1996

c) First instalment of IR - Rs.100/-

d) Second instalment of IR - 10% of Basic Pay

e) Fixation benefit of 40% of Basic Pay as on 1-1-1996.

15.91 Even in all such cases, allow another 10% fitment (additionality) benefit on the basic pay as on 1-1-1996.

15.92 By aggregating the sum as aforestated, the pay of the Officer shall be refixed as per the principles enunciated earlier.

15.93 Date of Next Increment in the Revised Scale :

a) We also recommend that the next increment of an Officer in the revised scale shall be granted on the date he would have drawn the increment, had he continued in the existing scale.

b) If an Officer draws his next increment in the revised scale under clause (a) above and thereby becomes eligible for higher pay than his senior whose next increment falls due at a later date, then, the pay of such senior shall be refixed equal to the pay of the junior from the date on which the junior becomes entitled to higher pay. In cases where the pay of an Officer is stepped up in terms of clause (b) above, the next increment shall be granted after completing requisite qualifying service, i.e., one year.

15.94 Needless to state that an Officer who reaches stagnation level, must be given stagnation increment as prevalent in the respective States/UTs.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS :

15.95 Having made the foregoing recommendations on the pay structure, it becomes necessary to quantify the financial implications of these recommendations to every State/U.T.

15.96 This is a bit difficult task since actual strength of the Judicial Officers in each cadre at each pay stage, as on date, is not available with us. We have only the pay scale-wise number of Officers in each State/U.T.

15.97 We have, however, on the basis of data available - the difference between average yearly emoluments (i.e., pay + D.A.) of the Judicial Officers in the existing scales of pay and that on the basis of new scales of pay recommended- we have estimated the financial liability on introduction of new scales.

15.98 The available information shows that 12,771 posts on regular pay scales are in existence. While calculating the financial implications, the old scales of pay, prior to the implementation of 5th CPC scales, have been considered. Since-then, certain State Governments/UTs have revised their pay scales. In some States/UTs, 5th CPC scales have been adopted in toto while in others, the scales have been modified. Further, in some States, pay scales have been revised based on the recommendations of their own pay Commission or Official Pay Committee. If these pay scales have already been adopted, the financial liability will, to that extent, be reduced.

15.99 Introduction of measures for removal of stagnation such as ACP for both Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Civil Judges (Senior Division) and also Selection Grades and Super Time Scales for District Judges and slight variations in the grading of Judicial Officers are not taken into consideration in this calculation.

15.100 Further, the Commission, although has not made modifications in the pension and gratuity scale (except pension structure for past pensioners), the merger of D.A., I.R. and 10% fitment benefit automatically increase the financial burden on State Exchequer. Similarly, other recommendations pertaining to allowances will also entail additional expenditure, the estimation of which would not be possible.

15.101 Broadly, the totality of the additional financial burden upon the revised scales being given effect to would be of the order of Rs.95.71 crores for a year for all States/UTs. This includes the payment of IR given to the Judicial Officers and also the benefits of 5th CPC scales. Details of financial implication, State-wise, are given in the appendix. The summary of the same is given below for immediate reference :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Estimated Financial Implications of New Scales of Pay to Judicial Officers

Sl. No.

State / UT

Number of Judicial Officers

Additional Financial Burden

(Rs. in Crores)

1.

Andhra Pradesh

672

4.14

2.

Assam

221

2.05

3.

Bihar

1648

11.60

4.

Goa

44

0.34

5.

Gujarat

640

4.98

6.

Haryana

266

2.23

7.

Himachal Pradesh

94

0.70

8.

Jammu & Kashmir

162

1.45

9.

Karnataka

632

4.10

10.

Kerala

382

2.53

11.

Madhya Pradesh

988

8.26

12.

Maharashtra

1250

8.60

13.

Manipur

30

0.33

14.

Meghalaya

8

0.11

15.

Mizoram

53

0.44

16.

Nagaland

22

0.22

17.

Orissa

457

3.72

18.

Punjab

301

2.45

19.

Rajasthan

761

5.60

20.

Sikkim

12

0.12

21.

Tamil Nadu

602

3.74

22.

Tripura

73

0.45

23.

Uttar Pradesh

2239

17.37

24.

West Bengal

773

7.16

25.

Delhi

419

2.84

26.

Lakshadweep

3

0.03

27.

Pondicherry

19

0.15

Total :

12771

95.71

 

15.102 We are not unaware of the fact that there are equally other important calls from other departments on the States' revenue, but as the Supreme Court has observed in the All India Judges' cases, the States should not make any grievance on the little hike in the emoluments of Judicial Officers which is as important as the other two organs of the State.

15.103 We have also made a recommendation by way of substantial relief to the States - in a separate chapter - that the Central Government shall bear fifty per cent of all the expenditure of the Subordinate Courts, including but limited to, the emoluments of the Judicial Officers, the Court Staff, and the infrastructure with proper furniture and fixture in Courts.

 

* * * * *