G. M. LODHA, C. J. - (1.) SHRI Padam Kumar Jain, President, Rajasthan Judicial Service Association, addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of this Court on 4th September, 1987. This letter was directed to be registered as a writ petition and was listed before a division bench of this Court. The Division Bench by its order dated 8th September, 1987, issued a notice to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajaslhan to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted. After service the case was admitted vide order dated 6th November, 1987. SHRI B. L. Sharma appeared for the petitioner and prayed that an ad interim stay order should be passed directing the respondent to allow Selection scale and Super-time scale to the RJS Officers anologous to the RAS Officers in the State of Rajasthan.
(2.) SHRI S. B. Mathur appeared on behalf of the State and prayed for time to file reply and the case was listed for orders and hearing on 17th November, 1987. On 17th November, 1987, time was sought on behalf of the State and, this Court was informed that the Government is giving active consideration to the demand made in the writ petition. The case was adjourned to allow time to file reply and, ultimately, after filing the reply, the ease was heard. The main grievance raised in this writ petition by the petitioner is that Selection scale and Super-time scale has been allowed to RAS, RACS and RPS cadres of Rajasthan which has resulted in discrimination against RJS cadre who has not been given the benefit of Selection grade or Super-time seale. The treatment which has been given to the judiciary in comparison to the provincial executive wing in the State is the main grievance of this writ petition and is a cause of heart burning. The brief history of the different cadres of services in the State of Rajasthan would reveal that the position of Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS) vis-a-vis the Officers of the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS ). Rajasthan Police Service (RPS) was a bit better. While Assistant Collectors, Magistrates, and Sub-Divisional Officers were in the scale of pay of 250-25-400 E8-25-500, Civil Judges and Munsiffs were in the pay scale of 250-25-400-25-500. It may further be observed that there were three pay scales for Judicial Officers, one which has already been stated above; another scale was 400-25-600 for Civil and Assistant Sessions Judges and third one was 600-25-800 which was given to the District & Sessions Judges. As against these three scales available to the Judicial Officers there were only two pay scales-for the Administrative Officers, one which has been referred to above and another was 500-25-700, which was given to the Collectors and Additional Collectors. This was the position in the year 1950 and had continued upto 1956. In 1954, Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules and Rajasthan Police Services Rules were framed. Under Pay Scale Rules of 1956, the ordinary pay scale admissible to the Munsiff and Civil Judge was 250-25-500-EB-25-750 and the pay scale admissible to the Rajasthan Administrative Service was 250-25-500-EB-25-750 which was termed as time-scale There was a selection grade of 500-30-740-EB-30-800-50-900. Thus, so far as the time-scale grade was concerned, it remained the same for RJS and RAS Officers. However, District & Sessions Judges, Civil Judges and Additional Sessions Judges were constituted into a separate cadre known as RHJS. A comparative statement showing the pay scales of Officers of Rajasthan Administrative Service and Rajasthan Judicial Service since 1956 upto 1987 is given below. In the year 1969, the under Rules of Rajasthan Civil Services New Pay Scale Rules, 1969, the Rajasthan Administrative Service was to have three scales, one ordinary time scale; second senior scale and the third was selection grade. The same pay scales and rules were made admissible to the Rajasthan Accounts Service. With respect to the Rajasthan Police Service, ordinary time scale and senior scales were kept at par with the Rajasthan Administrative Service and the Rajasthan Accounts Service. But, so far as the Rajasthan Judicial Service is concerned, the ordinary time scale was meant for Munsiff and was kept at par with the Rajasthan Administrative Service, Rajasthan Police Service and Rajasthan Accounts Service. The senior scale was given to the Civil Judges belonging to the Rajasthan Judicial Service. But, whereas the senior scale was made available 100% to the Rajasthan Administrative Service, Rajasthan Accounts Service and Rajasthan Police Service, the senior scale was given only to 1/3rd of the Civil Judges and, they were designated as Senior Civil Judges. The selection grade was disallowed to the Rajasthan Judicial Service. Thus, in the year 1969, the first major deviation from the principle of treating the Rajasthan Judicial Service, in the matter of pay scales at par with the Rajasthan Administrative Services, Rajasthan Accounts Services and Rajasthan Police Services, was made. It is contended by the petitioner that thus in the initial stage, the Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers were given better treatment than the Officers of other services referred to above. In the year 1961, the judicial work which was discharged by the Executive Magistrates were completely taken away from them and the same was entrusted to the Officers of the Rajasthan Judicial Service. It may be mentioned here that cases under the minor Acts only remained with the Executive Magistrates. In the year 1974, there was a complete separation of judiciary from executive and a new system of designation of posts came in under the New Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As a result of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, posts of Chief Judicial Magistrates were created and, the administration of justice in the District was placed under the control of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Year Ordinary Scale Senior Scale Selection Scale Super-time Scale Ordinary Scale Senior Scale Selection Scale Super-time Scale 1956 250-550-EB-750 250-750 (No EB) 1961 250-550-EB-750 500-800 250-750 (No EB) Nil 1966 285-800 500-800 285-800 Nil 1969 375-800 700-1200 1100-1500 375-800 700-1200 (1/3) 500-1000 (2/3) Nil 1976 750-1350 1150-1650 1550-1900 750-1350 930-1500 (1/3) 1250-1700 (2/3) Nil 1983 1000-1860 1500-2250 1920-2500 1000-1860 1600-2325 Nil 1987 1720-3350 2540-3900 2975-4700 3900-5300 1720-3350 2600-4150 Nil Nil It is further contended by the petitioner that the duties and the functions which were previously discharged by the District Magistrates as District Magistrates with respect to administration of criminal justice were entrusted exclusively to the Chief Judicial Magistrates. The office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was from amongst the cadre of Civil Judges. At this time, some improvements were made in the RAS grade and other grades. For RAS Officers the grades were revised from Rs. 700-1200 to Rs. 1150-1650 and the grades of Chief Judicial Magistrate were revised to 1250-1750 under the New Pay Scale Rules of 1976. It is further contended that to the Civil Judges who were not Chief Judicial Magistrates, the scale allowed was Rs 930-1500, whereas the revised grade of the Rajasthan Administrative Service was Rs. 1150-1650. The Rules of 1976 were replaced by the Rules of 1983. In the year 1983, the ordinary time-scale was revised both for RJS and RAS to Rs. 1000-1860. With respect to Civil Judges, whether they were Chief Judicial Magistrates or not, one pay scale was allowed which was Rs. 1600-2325, while the senior pay scale of RAS Officers was revised to Rs. 1500-2270 and the Selection scale allowed to RAS Officers was revised to Rs. 1920-2500. The aforesaid rules of 1983 were further revised by the Rules of 1987. Thus, it appears from the above that there are four pay scales in RAS, RPS, RA/cs -Ordinary Scale (19) 1720-3050; Senior Scale (22) 2540-3900; Selection Scale (25) 2975-4700 and Super-time Scale (30) 3900-5300. On the other hand, Rajasthan Judicial Service has only two scales of pay, one Scale No. 19-1720-3350 and another Scale No. 23 - 2600-4150.
(3.) FROM the above narration of facts, it would be evident that the Rajasthan Administrative Service, Rajasthan Police Service and Rajasthan Accounts Service, which in the year 1950 were being treated lower than Judicial Service so far as pay scales were concerned, have been brought since 1969 to 1987 to a position which is higher and beneficial then the pay scales allowed to the Judicial Officers. FROM the above narration, it is also evident that the responsibilities of Judicial Officers have increased, but their pay scales have been reduced in comparison to the Rajasthan Administrative Service, Rajasthan Police Service and Rajasthan Accounts Service. At this junction, we would like to state that, though Legislature, Executive and Judiciary are the three wings of our democracy and, it is the independent judiciary which ensures rule of law. It is on account of this reason that the judiciary is being treated with respect and faith in comparison to the executive officers, and this distinction is one of the essential features of our constitutional system of justice. We would like to refer to some of the comments which famous jurists, philosophers or the Judges have observed in respect of judiciary. The Law Commission, headed by Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar, in its Fifty-Fourth Report, observed as under:- "53. 4. In this connection we must first and foremost, refer to the question of adequate remuneration to the members of the judiciary which has been discussed more than once. It is obvious that ill-paid Judicial Officers cannot give their best. 53. 5. What is more important is, poor remuneration for Judicial Officers can never attract competent lawyers to join the judicial service. We confess that we are unable to decide how we should express our firm belief in this matter, in order to convince the Union Government and the State Governments that they are ill serving judicial administration by refusing to recognise the patent truth that for the success of the judicial process, we must attract competent lawyers to join the judicial service, and that competent lawyers just will not be attracted to the judicial service unless the terms of their services are radically improved. 53. 5a. We are fully conscious that the subject of the terms and conditions of service of the subordinate judiciary is a matter for the State Government to decide, but we would urge the Union Government to persuade the State Governments to take the necessary action without delay before the judicial process falls into complete disrepute by its inefficiency and unsatisfactory working. If the rule of law is to become and continue to be a reality in our national life, our courts must be manned by a competent and experi-enced and fearless judges, it is in this context that we proceed to make our recommendations. 53. 6 (2 ). The remuneration at present payable to judges is grossly inadequate. The Law Commission has in its Fourteenth Report, made certain recommendations on this subject. If Judges are expected to work efficiently and honestly, they should be properly paid, having regard to their status and the nature of work done by them. " Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee in a special issue of Illustrated Weekly of India, dated December 11, 1977 stated as follows: "it is implicit in the concept of independence that provision must be made for adequate remuneration of the judiciary. . . 'unfortunately, despite strong public agitation the conditions of service of the Judiciary have remained substantially unchanged since the dawn of Independence. The service conditions of the subordinate judiciary are appalling. Many of them do not have the basic staff and amenities requisite for proper discharge of judicial work. Their main problem is of accommodation. There is hardly any section of society where salaries have practically remained stationary for the last 27 years, as in the case of the higher judicialy Judicial independence can be undetermined not only by political pressure but also by financial anxiety". ;