K.G.Balakrishnan, CJ. - (1.) BY this Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Maharashtra State Judges Association and some District Judges, have sought the following directions to the respondents : (i) to make an uniform single cadre of District Judges by merging the posts of District Judges, Addl. District Judges, City Civil Court Judges, Chief Judge and Addl. Chief Judges of Small Cause Court, with effect from 13.11.1991 or altematively with effect from 31.3.1994 (or further alternatively from 1.7.1996) with inter-se seniority being determined with reference to the date of entry into service in the said posts. (ii) to withdraw the Maharashtra Judicial Service (Seniority) Rules 2007 (for short the 'Rules') and make rules in regard to seniority, in conformity with the decision of this Court, by having a single uniform cadre of District Judges (by merging the aforesaid multiple categories of posts) with effect from 13.11.1991 or 31.3.1994 or 1.7.1996; or in the alternative, to quash the said Rules in particular the proviso to Rule 4(1) of the said Rules. (iii) to withdraw the draft gradation list of District Judges circulated on 30.3.2007 and make the said list as on 13.11.1991, or 31.3.1994 or 1.7.1996 on the basis of entry of the Judicial Officers in the cadre as District Judges/Addl. District Judges/City Civil Court Judges/ Chief Judge and Addl. Chief Judges of Small Court.
(2.) IN the year 1989, a writ petition was filed in this Court by the All INdia Judges' Association praying for setting up an All INdia Judicial Service and for bringing about uniform conditions of service for members of subordinate judiciary throughout the country. The judgment in the said petition rendered on 13.11.1991 issuing several directions is reported in All INdia Judges' Association (I) vs. Union of INdia [1992 (1) SCC 119}. The said judgment inter alia directed the Union of INdia to take steps to bring about uniformity in the designation of judicial officers (both in civil and the criminal side) by March 31,1993. This Court adopting the view of the Law Commission in its fourteenth .report, observed as follows : "On the civil side, the State Judicial service, therefore, should be classified as District or Additional District Judge, Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division). On the criminal side, there should be a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge and below him there should be the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Magistrates provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appropriate adjustments, if any, may be made of existing posts by indicating their equivalence with any of these categories. The process of bringing about such uniformity would require some time and perhaps some monitoring." This Court also expressed the view that setting up an All INdia Judicial Service essentially for manning the higher services in the sub-ordinate Judiciary was necessary and directed the Union of INdia to take appropriate steps in that regard. By a further order dated 24.8.1993 (reported in 1993 (4) SCC 288 - All INdia, Judges Association (II) vs. Union of INdia ), the time to comply with the directions for bringing about uniformity in hierarchy, designations and jurisdictions of judicial officers on both civil and criminal sides was extended upto 31.3.1994. On 21.3.1996, the Government of India by a resolution constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission ('Commission' for short) under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, mainly to evolve the principles which should govern the structure of pay and emoluments of Judicial Officers belonging to the subordinate judiciary all over the country. The Commission submitted its report on 11.11.1999. By its Judgment dated 21.3.2002, this Court in All India Judges' Association (III) Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2002j 4 SCC 247, accepted the recommendations of Shetty Commission subject to the modifications mentioned in the said judgment. The High Courts and the State Governments were required to amend their rules to bring them in conformity with the directions of this Court. This Court further directed "Any clarification that may be required in respect of any matter arising out of this decision will be sought only from this Court. The proceedings, if any, for implementation of the directions given in this Judgment shall be filed only in this Court and no other Court shall entertain them." Justice Shetty Commission had found that in most of the States and Union Territories, there were three cadres of Judicial Officers with uniform designations. But in a few States, there were different designations and multiple categories. Therefore, the Commission suggested that uniformity be brought about in cadres and designations with uniform jurisdiction. This was also an absolute necessity since Commission proposed to provide uniform pay scales and other emoluments to the Judicial Officers by dividing them into three levels, namely (i) Civil Judge (Junior Division) to be referred to as 'Civil Judges'; (ii) Civil Judge (Senior Division) to be referred to as Senior Civil Judges; and (iii) District Judges. It also recommended pay scales on that basis to be given effect from 1.7.1996.
(3.) WHEN the report of the Shetty Commission was submitted, the sub-ordinate Judiciary in the State of Maharashtra had multiple categories of Judges with different designations, as follows : JUDGEMENT_830_SUPREME8_2008Html1.htm In view of the acceptance of Shetty Commission's recommendation by this Court and consequential directions, the High Court of Bombay on its administrative side considered the matter in the light of the directions given by this Court and appointed a four member Committee of Judges under the Chairmanship of Justice S.H. Kapadia of the Bombay High Court (as he then was) to implement the directions of this Court issued while accepting the Justice Shetty Commission Report. The Committee by its report dated 24.8.2002 accepted that there shall be uniform single cadre of District Judges consisting of District Judges, Joint District Judges and City Civil Court Judges (Category-I), Chief Judge, Small Cause Court (Category-IA), Addl. District Judges and Addl. Chief Judges, Small Cause Court (Category-II). The Committee also recommended that 1.7.1996 should be the date for caderisation. We extract below the relevant portions of the report: "Constitution of unified cadre As far as constitution of the cadre of District Judge is concerned, the Committee has equated the three cadres of District Judge, Joint District Judge and City Civil Court Judges into one category/block (hereinafter referred to as Category No.I). This equation is based on numerous factors. For example, Judges of the City Civil Court, Bombay have different sources of recruitment viz., by transfer of District Judge, by promotion from the cadre of Addl. District Judge, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Addl. Chief Judge, Small Causes Court and by nomination. Therefore, a District Judge can be transferred to City Civil Court and vice-versa. Therefore, apart from that post being a promotional post, looking to the nature of the functions discharged in that cadre and the qualifications for recruitment, the Committee has equated the cadres of District Judge, Joint District Judge and City Civil Court Judges into one block/ Category No.I. In the same category, however, the Committee has recommended a sub-category styled as Category No.IA, which applies to Chief Judge, Small Causes Court. This subcategory No.IA has been made because the post of Chief Judge, Small Cause Court is a feeder post to the City Civil Court Judges cadre. Therefore, although the Chief Judge, Small Cause Court comes under Category No.I that cadre will be placed after the unified block consisting of District Judge/Joint District Judge/Judges of the City Civil Court. This is also in view of the difference in the pay scale between category No. I and category no. IA. It needs to be clarified that the principle of date of entry, therefore, would apply to category no.I which would cover District Judge/Joint District Judge/Judges of the City Civil Court as a block and the inter-se seniority within that block shall be governed by the date of entry. Category-I and Category-IA, however, will be placed above Category-II which will cover Addl. District Judges and Addl. Chief Judges, Small Causes Court on the same principles of duties performed, parity of pay-scales and they constituting feeder post for the post of District Judge/City Civil Court Judge. To sum up, the analysis of Annexure-II shows that in the new cadre of District Judge, category No.I will consist of District Judges, Joint District Judges/City Civil Court Judges. They will constitute one single bloc and that bloc will rank senior to category no.IA consisting of Chief Judge, Small Cause Court and similarly category no.IA as one single bloc will be placed above category no.II consisting of Addl. District Judges/Additional Chief Judges, Small Causes Court. As stated above, within each bloc, the inter-se seniority will be based on the date of entry in the post and as per the seniority basis in the old cadre. By this method, we are applying the principle of unification of unequal cadres and we are also applying the rule of date of entry for the purposes of seniority inter-se within each bloc. Therefore, the new cadre of District Judge will consist of the above two categories. Date of Caderization The Committee considered various options for fixing the date of caderisation. The consensus which ultimately emerged was that the date of caderisation should be taken as 1.7.1996. The reason is as follows. Under the Report of Shetty Commission, the various old cadres are required to be merged into three cadres viz., Civil Judge, Senior Civil Judge and District Judge. It is important to note that under the Report, the financial liability is fixed with effect from 1.7.1996. The pay scales recommended by the Commission have to be given effect to from 1.7.1996. That, for the purposes of pay, the post of Addl. District Judge has to be equated with District Judge. It was not possible for the Committee to have two separate dates - one for caderisation and one for pay fixation. Even as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association case (supra) decided in 2002, the cut off date for pay fixation and for payment of other allowances is 1.7.199. Therefore, the Committee is of the view that the date of caderisation will be taken on 1.7.1996. In fact, after fixing the date of caderisation as 1.7.199, the Committee has worked out the above categorization on en block basis keeping in mind the various principles laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulkarni's (supra) case. In other words, 1.7.1996 is the cut off date. In other words, applying 1.7.1996 as the cut off date, the Committee has evolved the above categorization/blocks for the pur poses of unifying the various old cadres into three cadres and, at the same time, the Committee has applied the principle of the date of entry for fixing the inter- se seniority within each block/category. The committee is of the view that this is the only method by which the various cadres could be unified/merged keeping intact the seniority of the judicial officers in each category/block." ;