REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 211 OF 2007

Maharashtra State Judges Association & Ors. …. Petitioners

Vs.

The Registrar General, High Court,

High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Anr. …..

Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI

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  alternatively  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.  

Background Facts

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 sub-ordinate judiciary throughout the country. The judgment in the said

petition rendered on 13.11.1991 issuing several directions is reported in All

2

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.

3

3. 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 & Ors. -  (2002) 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.”

4. 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

4

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.  

5. 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 :  

I. Higher Judicial Service (a) District Judge (and Joint District Judges) (b) Additional District Judge, (c) Judges of the Bombay City Civil Court, (d) Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, (e) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (f) Additional Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, and (g) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

II. Subordinate Judicial Service

(a) Metropolitan Magistrate and Judges of the Small Causes Court, Bombay and

(b) Civil Judge (Senior Division). (c) Civil Judge (Junior Division).

5

Out of them, the following four categories related to mofussil area :  

(a) District Judge,  (b) Additional District Judge,  (c) Civil Judge (Senior Division) and  (d) Civil Judge (Junior Division)

The following other categories were for Mumbai area :

(a) Judges of the City Civil Court, (b) Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court and Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate,  (c) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief

Judge of the Small Causes Court, and  (d) Metropolitan  Magistrates  and  Judges  of  the  Small  Causes

Court.  

The scales of pay, sources of recruitment and promotional avenues for these

posts were also different as detailed below :  

Sr. No.

Cadre Pay  as  per (IVth  Pay Commission)

Pay  as  per  (Vth Pay Commission)

Source of recruitment Promotional Avenue

1. Civil Judge  (Jr. Division)

2200-4000 8000-13500 Direct recruitment from Bar Senior Civil Judge

2. Civil Judge  (Sr. Division)

3200-4625 10650-15850 Promotion from C.J (J.D) A.D.J., SCC, Addl. C.M.M.

3. Metropolitan Magistrate

3700-5000 12000-18500 Direct  recruitment  from  Bar  and  by promotion from Civil Judges.

Addl. C.M.M.

4. Judge,  Small  Cause Court

3700-5000 12000-18500 By promotion  from Civil  Judges and by direct recruitment from Bar.

Addl. Chief Judge, SCC

6

5. Addl.  Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

3700-5000 12000-18500 Promotion  from  Metropolitan Magistrate and SCC and by transfer of ADJs.

Judge,  City  Civil  Court, Mumbai.

6. Addl.  Chief Judge,  SCC, Bombay

3700-5000 12000-18500 Promotion  from  Judges  of  Court  of SCC or Metropolitan Magistrates.

Judge,  City  Civil  Court, Mumbai.

7. Addl.  District Judges

3700-5000 12000-18500 Promotion from Junior Branch Judicial Service.

Judge  City  Civil  and Sessions Court,  Gr. Bombay or District Judge.

8. Chief  Judge, SCC, Bombay

4500-5700 14300-18300 Transfer  of  District  Judge  or  by promotion  of  Addl.  District Judge/Addl. Chhief Judge, SCC/Addl. C.M.M.

Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay.

9. District Judge /  Joint District Judge

4500-5700 14300-18300 Promotion  from junior  Branch  or  by direct  recruitment  from  Bar  with minimum practice of 7 years.

Eligible  for  elevation  as Judge of High Court.

10. Judge,  City Civil  and Sessions Court, Bombay.

5400-6500 16400-20900 Direct  recruitment  from  Bar,  by transfer  of  District  Judge,  and promotion of Chief Judge, SCC, Addl. Chief  Judge,  SCC,  C.M.M.,  Addl. C.M.M. and promotion of Addl. Dist. Judges.

Eligible  for  elevation  as Judge of High Court.

6. 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

7

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  sub-category 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

8

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 purposes 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.”  

7. Several  writ  petitions  were  filed  before  this  Court  challenging  the

recommendations  of  Justice Kapadia  Committee  report.  WP(C) 258/2003

was filed by the petitioner Association and some of its members.  WP(C)

9

No.75/2004 was filed by persons appointed as City Civil Court Judges from

the  Bar  after  1.7.1996  (1997  batch).  WP(C)  No.157/2004  was  filed  by

persons  appointed  from the  Bar  as  District  Judges  after  1.7.1996  (after

initially serving as Addl. District Judges for minimum period of 2 years as

per BJSR Rules 1956. WP(C) No.429/2004 was filed by persons appointed

as District Judge from the Bar after 1.7.1996 and prior to 21.3.2002 (date of

decision  in  All  India  Judges’  Association  III).  This  Court  by a  common

Judgment  dated  15.2.2006  disposed  of  these  Writ  Petitions  with  the

following observation:-

“We are of the view that it  would be expedient if the High Court  first examines the grievances made in the petition having regard to all relevant considerations.   Further,  we  hope  that  the  High  Court  would  be  in  a position to decide the same expeditiously.  It may be clarified that we have not examined the matter on merits and express no view one way or the other.   

In this view, we dispose of these Writ Petitions/Applications with liberty to anyone who may be aggrieved to approach the appropriate forum.”

8. The High Court of Bombay on its administrative side considered the

matter  as  per  the  directions  given  by  this  Court  and  appointed  a  fresh

Committee of three Judges under the Chairmanship of Justice Gokhale, a

Judge of the High Court (as he then was).  The said Committee submitted its

Report dated 19.9.2006. The said Report did not disturb the constitution of

the  unified  cadre  of  District  Judges  recommended  by  Justice  Kapadia

10

Committee.  It  also  reiterated  the  recommendation  of  Justice  Kapadia

Committee that the date of caderisation should be 1.7.1996. But taking note

of hardship to certain sections, on account of retrospective caderisation, it

suggested a modification to protect the seniority of Judicial Officers who

obtained their  positions  either  as  City Civil  Judges or District  Judges by

direct appointment or by promotion between 1.7.1996 and 31.3.2003. The

reasoning of the Committee in this behalf is extracted below :  

“As  we  have  noted  above,  the  judgment  in  the  Judges’  Case  No.III contains the directions to integrate the cadre and to implement the Shetty Commission Report with respect to revised pay scales. This direction was given in this judgment rendered on 21st March, 2002. The benefits with respect to revision in pay have been given from 1st July, 1996 as directed. We have adopted the same date as the date of caderisation. The rules were directed to be framed at the earliest and in any case, by 31st March, 2003. It can, therefore, be said that the Judicial Officers had a notice that the new rules and the integrated cadre and seniority were to come in force in any case by 31st March, 2003. It is another matter that the rules have not been finalized so far and, therefore, the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956 are still in force. As seen in Anil Kumar Shetye’s case (supra), the Apex Court has in terms noted that the Addl. District Judge’s post is a feeder post to that of a City Civil Court and that the salaries of the City Civil Court Judges are also higher. In para 29 in Judges’ Case No.III, the Apex Court has noted as seen above that the existing relative seniority of the members of the Higher Judicial Service has to be protected. This will have to be done until  the new Rules come into force. It is true that as observed  in  BM  Gupta’s  case  (supra),  the  Judges’  Case  Nos.I  and  II brought  about  changes  in  certain  service  conditions.  However,  the integration of the cadres and their seniority remained to be decided. The Judges who have been either appointed directly as the City Civil  Court Judges  or  the  District  Judges  or  who  have  been  promoted  in  the meanwhile as District Judges will, therefore, have to be protected in the matter of their seniority. This will have to be done for those Judges who obtained such positions until 31st March, 2003.”  

11

9. The  recommendations  given  by  Justice  Gokhale  Committee  were

considered and accepted by the Full Court of the Bombay High Court on

3.2.2007. In pursuance of it, the Government of Maharashtra in consultation

with the High Court of Bombay framed the Maharashtra Judicial Service

(Seniority) Rules, 2007 (‘Rules’ for short) giving effect to the directions of

this  Court.  The  said  Rules  were  deemed  to  have  come into  force  from

1.7.1996.  Rule  4  deals  with  Initial  Seniority  of  Officers  forming unified

cadre  of  District  Judges.  Sub-rules  (1)  and  (2)  which  are  relevant  are

extracted below :  

“(1) On the date of commencement of these rules, initial seniority of Officers who are to form the unified cadre of District Judges shall be determined as under:-

(a) Separate lists of officers as on 1st July, 1996 in the existing cadres of District Judges, Judges of City Civil and Sessions Court, Chief Judges and Additional Chief Judges of Small Causes Court, and Additional District Judges in accordance with their existing seniority shall be drawn up.

(b) (i) Lists of District Judges/Joint District Judges and  Judges  of  City  Civil  Court  shall  be  merged  by arranging  the  names  of  Officers  according  to  their respective dates of entry in  any of these posts,  either on temporary or regular basis, provided that while so merging the lists, inter-se-seniority of Officers in each original cadre shall be maintained.

(ii) The name of Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes shall be appended to the list prepared as per sub-clause (i) above:

Provided  that  those  appointed  as  City  Civil  Court Judges or District Judges after 1st July, 1996 but before 31st  March  2003,  either  by  direct  recruitment  or

12

promotion, shall be included in a common list, wherein they shall be listed in an order of seniority based on the date  of  their  appointment  to  the  respective  posts. Officers included in this list, shall be placed en-bloc in the  initial  seniority  list,  immediately  below  those included under rule 4(1)(b)(i) and before those covered by rule 4(1)(b)(ii) and 4(1)(c).

(c) List  of  Additional  District  Judges  and  Additional Chief Judges of the Court of Small Causes shall be merged by arranging the names of Officers according to their dates of  entry  on  any  of  these  posts,  either  on  temporary  or regular  basis,  provided  that  while  so  merging  the  lists, inter-se-seniority of officers in each original cadre shall be maintained.

List so prepared shall be appended to the list prepared as per clause (b)(i)  above, below the Chief  Judge, Court  of Small Causes.

(2) Officers  appointed  to  posts  in  the  unified  cadre  of  District Judges  on  or  after  1st  July,  1996  other  than  those  covered  by the proviso to rule  4(1)(b)(ii)  shall  be placed below the Officers  in  the seniority list as on 1st July, 1996 and below those covered under rule 4 (1)  according  to  the  dates  of  their  first  permanent  or  temporary appointment on regular basis to any of the posts in the unified cadre of District Judges.

xxxxx xxxxxxxx

Contentions and issues:

10. According to the petitioners, the caderisation of the District Judges of

various  categories  should  have  been  with  effect  from 31.3.1994  and  not

01.7.1996 having regard to the directions contained in the judgments dated

13.11.1991 and 24.8.1993 in  All  India  Judges Association  I and II.  It  is

13

pointed  out  that  the  State  of  Maharashtra  did  not  seek  review  of  the

directions given in All India Judges Association I and II. It is alternatively

contended that once the date of caderisation is accepted as 01.7.1996, the

seniority should have been reckoned from the date of entry into the service,

of Judicial Officers of various categories  which were unified into a single

cadre of District Judges. It is contended that having been done, introduction

of the proviso to Rule 4(1) to the effect that those appointed as Judges or

District  Judges of City Civil  Court after 01.7.1996, but before 31.3.2003,

either by direct recruitment or promotion, shall be included in a common list

and shall be placed  en bloc in the initial seniority list, immediately below

those included in Rule 4(1)(b)(i) and before those covered by Rule 4(1)(b)

(ii)  and  4(1)(c),  is  illegal  and  violates  the  principle  of  equality.  It  is

submitted  that  while  purporting  to  bring  about  uniformity  of  cadre  as

directed  by  this  Court,  any  effort  to  re-fix  seniority  of  certain  class  of

claimants by placing them above others would defeat the very purpose of

bringing uniformity and will lead to inconsistencies and contradictions. It is

submitted that the proviso intends to safeguard the interests and fulfil  the

alleged legitimate expectations of certain sections, at the cost and expense

of interests of other sections who also have legitimate expectations. On the

contentions urged two points arise for our consideration :

14

(i) Whether the caderisation (merger of posts of District Judges/Joint District  Judges/City  Civil  Court  Judges/Chief  Judge  of  Small Causes  Court/Addl.  District  Judges/Addl.  Chief  Judge  of  Small Cause  Court)  should  be  with  effect  from 31.3.1994  instead  of 1.7.1996?

(ii) Whether insertion of proviso to Rule 4(1) to protect the seniority of persons appointed by direct recruitment or promotion between 1.7.1996 to 31.3.2003 is illegal and discriminatory?  

Re : Point (i)

11. This Court by order dated 13.11.1991 in All India Judges Association

(I) had  directed  that  steps  should  be  taken  to  bring  about  uniformity in

hierarchy,  designations  and jurisdictions  of  the  Judicial  Officers  on  both

civil and criminal sides by 31.3.1993. It is submitted that while Union of

India  and  some other  States  had  sought  review of  the  first  order  dated

13.11.1991, the State of Maharashtra did not seek either review of the order

or sought extension of time for implementation. By subsequent order dated

24.8.1993 while disposing of the review petition,  this  Court  in  All  India

Judges Association (II), extended the time for bringing about uniformity in

hierarchy,  designations  and  jurisdictions  of  the  Judicial  Officers  up  to

31.3.1994. It is therefore contended that the state of Maharashtra was bound

to comply with the said orders and, consequently, ought to have brought in

15

caderisation by having a single and uniform cadre of District Judges latest

by  31.3.1994.  It  is  submitted  that  even  if  there  was  some  delay,  the

caderisation when made, ought to have been given retrospective effect from

31.3.1994.  Reliance  is  placed  on  the  decision  of  Anil  Kumar  Neotia  v.

Union of India [1988 (2) SCC 587] and  T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana

[1989 (4) SCC 71] to contend that the orders of this Court are binding on all

and should be implemented within the time specified. It is contended that

the caderisation by constituting a unified cadre of District Judges with effect

from 1.7.1996 violated the earlier orders dated 13.11.1991 and 24.8.1993.

12. The contention  of  the petitioner  that  the failure  to  have  a uniform

cadre of District Judges with effect from 31.3.1994 amounts to disobedience

of the orders dated 13.11.1991 and 24.8.1993, cannot be accepted. All that

was directed by the order dated 13.11.1991 in All India Judges Association

(I)  was that  uniformity should be brought  in  the designations  of  judicial

officers as District  or Addl.  District  Judge, Civil  Judge (Senior Division)

and Civil Judge (Junior Division) on the civil side and Sessions Judge or

Additional Sessions Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrates and Magistrates on

the criminal side. Even in the  All India Judges Association(II),  what was

directed  by  order  dated  24.8.1993  was  implementation  of  the  Law

16

Commission’s  recommendations  to  bring  about  uniformity  in  hierarchy,

designations and jurisdiction of officers both on civil and criminal sides, as

directed on 13.11.1991. There was no specific direction to integrate into a

single unified cadre, wherever multiple categories existed. It was only when

the Shetty Commission recommended that there should be only three cadres,

namely, Civil  Judge (Junior  Division),  Civil  Judge (Senior  Division) and

District  Judges, and pay scales were also recommended with reference to

said  three  cadres,  it  became necessary  to  unify  or  integrate  the  multiple

categories into three cadres of District Judges, Civil Judge (Senior Division)

and  Civil  Judge  (Junior  Division).  As  Shetty  Commission  had

recommended the applicability of new pay-scales with effect from 1.7.1996,

it  became  inevitable  to  have  the  integration/unification  of  the  multiple

categories into three cadres, with effect from 1.7.1996. Further, this Court in

All India Judges Association(III) directed on 21.3.2002 acceptance of Shetty

Commission recommendations for having three cadres of District  Judges,

Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division) with effect

from 1.7.1996.  Therefore,  the  caderisation  was  rightly  given  effect  from

1.7.1996 under the Rules. The contention that it  ought to have been with

effect  from  13.11.1991  or  31.3.1994  has  no  merit.  The  first  point  is

answered  accordingly.

17

Re : Point (ii)

13. Justice Kapadia Committee recommended equation of the cadres of

District Judges, Joint District Judges and City Civil Court Judges into one

block (category 1); Chief Judge, Small Causes Court as category-IA; and

Additional  District  Judges  and  Additional  Chief  Judges  of  Small  Cause

Court as Category-II. The said Committee further recommended that in the

integrated seniority/gradation list, category-1A be placed below category-I,

and  category-II  be  placed  below  categories  1  and  1A.  Justice  Gokhale

Committee  agreed  with  the  said  unification/integration  in  the  manner

recommended by Justice Kapadia Committee. Consequently when the rules

were made a unified cadre of ‘District Judges’ was formed in the following

order, namely :-

I. District Judges/Joint District Judges/City Civil Court Judges      (Inter se seniority will be on the first date of entry in any of the posts either on temporary or regular basis)

1A. Chief Judge, Small Causes Court,  

II. Additional  District  Judges/Additional  Chief  Judges,  Small  Causes Court. (Inter se seniority will be as per their first date of entry in either of the posts, either on temporary or on regular basis.)

18

Thus,  there  was  unanimity  among  the  two  Committees  in  regard  to  the

unification of the  cadre of District  Judges as  above,  and that  the date of

categorization should be 1.7.1996. This was accepted by the High Court and

State  Government.  As  noticed  above,  the  recommendation  of  Justice

Kapadia  Committee in  regard to  the  unification  in  the manner  aforesaid,

with effect from 1.7.1996, was objected to by the three categories of District

Judges  :  (a)  by persons  who were  directly  recruited  as  City  Civil  Court

Judges after 1.7.1996; (b) by persons who were directly recruited as District

Judges  after  1.7.1996 and (c)  by persons  who were directly  recruited  as

District  Judges  prior  to  1.7.1996  to  initially  work  as  Additional  District

Judges till confirmation and notified as District Judges after 1.7.1996. The

effect of unification and caderisation with effect from 1.7.1996 was that the

Additional District Judges and Additional Judges of the Small Causes Court

(described as category-II by the Committees) would have been placed above

those directly recruited as City Civil Court Judges or District Judges after

1.7.1996.  

14. We have already noticed that caderisation by integration of multiple

categories of posts was not suggested either in All India Judges Association

(I) or (II). What was suggested therein was merely uniformity in hierarchy,

19

designation and jurisdictions of judicial officers in civil and criminal sides.

Shetty  Commission,  as  a  corollary  to  its  pay  scale  recommendation,

recommended that there should be only three cadres : District Judges, Civil

Judge  (Senior  Division)  and  Civil  Judge  (Junior  Division),  and  multiple

categories should be avoided. But the recommendation made in the report

dated 11.11.1999 was not binding, until it was accepted by this Court and

rules were framed in terms of it. The said recommendation was accepted in

All India Judges Association(III) by judgment dated 21.3.2002. By the said

order,  this  Court  granted  time  up  to  31.3.2003  to  implement  the  said

recommendations. Until the recommendation was accepted and rules were

framed,  the integration/caderisation  was  a nebulous  concept  incapable  of

being claimed or enforced as a right. Further, if caderisation was suggested

only  on  11.11.1999  and  accepted  by  this  court  only  on  21.3.2002  by

granting time for implementation till  31.3.2003, the seniority of all  those

who  were  appointed  to  the  higher  post  of  City  Civil  Court  Judges  and

District Judges between 1.7.1996 and 31.3.2003 vis-à-vis those who were in

the lower level post of Addl. District Judges and Addl. Chief Judge of Small

Cause  Court,  had  to  be  protected.  It  should  be  remembered  that  when

appointments were made to the post of District Judges or City Civil Court

Judges either by direct recruitment or by promotion between 1.7.1996 and

20

31.3.2003,  there was no rule  or enforceable direction for caderisation  by

integrating the lower posts of Addl. District Judges and Addl. Chief Judges

of Small  Cause Court  with the higher posts  of District  Judges/City Civil

Court  Judges/Chief  Judge  of  Small  Cause  Courts.   Merely  because

caderisation  by  integration  was  required  to  be  done  with  effect  from

1.7.1996 as Shetty Committee recommendations for revised pay scales were

given with effect from that date, it  does not follow that the persons who

were  appointed  between  1.7.1996  and  31.3.2003  in  the  higher  posts  of

District  Judges/City  Civil  Court  Judges  should  lose  their  seniority  to

persons who were holding lower posts when they were appointed.  Those

holding the posts of Addl. District Judges and Addl. Chief Judge of Small

Cause  Court  were  at  a  rung  lower  than  District  Judges/City  Civil  Court

Judges/Chief  Judge  of  Small  Cause  Court  and  time  was  available  till

31.3.2003 to  equate  them with  the  higher  posts  in  the hierarchy.  Such a

benefit was conferred in pursuance of the order dated 21.3.2002 with effect

from  the  date  of  making  rules  for  which  the  last  date  stipulate  was

31.3.2003. Therefore Justice Gokhale Committee rightly recommended that

the seniority of those appointed between 1.7.1996 and 31.3.2003 should be

protected.   All  that  the  proviso  to  Rule  4(1)  has  done  is  to  provide  the

protection to which those mentioned in the said proviso were entitled. There

21

is nothing discriminating or illegal in the said proviso. Those in the category

of Additional District Judges or Addl. Chief Judges of Small Cause Court

have not  made any legal  right  to  be placed  above those recruited  to  the

higher post of District Judges and City Civil Court Judges between 1.7.1996

and 31.3.2003.  

15. We therefore uphold the validity of the Rules. Consequently, the writ

petition is dismissed as having no merits.  

………………………..CJI [K. G. BALAKRISHNAN]

………………………….J [R. V. RAVEENDRAN]

……………………………J [J. M. PANCHAL]

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 11, 2008.

22