- (1.) Issue notice. In continuation of the order passed by this Court on 7.4.2010, All India Judges' Assn. (3) v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 , we pass the following order.
(2.) Many of the States, for example, the States of A.P., Gujarat, Orissa, Maharashtra and Goa had already submitted that they have no objection with the recommendations of Justice Padmanabhan Committee and would take appropriate steps to implement the same. The States of U.P., Rajasthan, Orissa submitted that they would implement Justice Padmanabhan Committee Report with effect from 1 2006.
(3.) Some of the States, especially the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur and J&K stated that they have got serious financial constraint and some of the States have already implemented the Sixth Pay Commission and there exists disparity in the recommendations between the 6th Pay Commission and the pay scale suggested by Justice Padmanabhan Committee, which should be avoided. It is submitted that these States would be further financially burdened if present Justice Padmanabhan Committee recommendations are accepted. They also submitted that they should get assistance from the Union of India for implementation of these recommendations. Their contention is that the pay scales to be paid to the judicial officers would be much higher than what is being paid to other executives of the States. It was, therefore, suggested that so much of increase in pay scale be avoided, which is likely to become an eyesore.;