http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSN. & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/02/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (2) 343 JT 1995 (2)   578  1995 SCALE  (2)130

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   These two appeals arc disposed of by a common  judgment since  the appeals arise from the judgment of  the  Division Bench of Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No.4196/83 dated October 13, 1993.  The respondent-Delhi Judicial Service Association had  filed the writ petition seeking for a writ or order  or direction  to  the  appellants to  place  the  Delhi  Higher Judicial Service Personnel in the pay scale of  Rs.5900-7300 or  to  place the District and Sessions Judges  in  the  pay scale of Rs.7300-7600 and/or to grant the relief w.e.f 1. 1. 1986.  They also sought for special pay of Rs.550/- p.m.  to all  officers  of Delhi Higher Judicial Service.   The  High Court in the impugned order directed to refix the salary  of the members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service in the  pay scale  of Rs.5900-6700w.e.f 1.1.1986within a period of  four months  from the date of the judgment and direction  to  pay the arrears of salary and allowances thereon within a 580 period  of  two months thereafter.  Feeling  aggrieved,  the Union  of India and the Delhi Administration have filed  the appeals respectively.  The crucial question that arises  for decision  is  whether all the officers of the  Delhi  Higher Judicial  Service are entitled to the pay scale of  Rs.5900- 7600  as ordered by the High Court?  Admittedly,  the  Delhi Higher Judicial Service was constituted by Rules made by the Administrator  in consultation with the High Court of  Delhi exercising  the  power  under  proviso  to  Art.309  of  the Constitution. Rule 18 of the Rules prescribes scale of pay in Part-IV  Pay & Allowances which reads as under: " 18.  The pay scale of the service shall be as follows: 1)   Time Scale - Rs. 1200-2000/- 2)   Selection Grade - Rs.2000-2250/- 3)   Super-time Scale - Rs.2500-2750/-" Rules 20 provides that "the pay of a promoted officer  shall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

be fixed in the aforesaid time scale in accordance with  the financial   rules,   regulations,  orders   or   directions, applicable  from time to time to the members of the  I.A.S". Rule  21 provides the number of selection grade  and  super- time  scale  posts shall be as shown in the  Schedule.   The Schedule  adumbrates the one post of District  and  Sessions Judge,  43  posts of Addl.  District &  Sessions  Judges,  5 posts  of Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, 5 posts  of  Addl. Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrates and 10 deputation  &  leave reserve @ IO% each, total 60 posts. Time Scale posts: 47 Selection Grade posts : 12 Super-time Scale posts : 1 2.   The  High Court adopted the principle to  consider  the claims of the Additional District & Sessions Judges  working in the time scale for the posts of selection grade that five candidates in the order of seniority would be considered for each  post  "  on  the  basis  of  merit."  Accordingly  the Additional District & Sessions Judges working in time  scale are being considered and given selection grade scale of  pay on  the  principle  of  "seniority  cum  merit".   From  the correspondence  placed before us, it would appear  that  the High  Court has been requesting the Union of India to  grant revised  selection grade pay scales to the officers  working in  the time scale also.  After the 4th Pay  Commission,  it would appear that Super-time Scale and Selection Grade posts have been fused and the District and Sessions Judge and  the Additional   District  &  Sessions  Judges  placed  in   the Selection Grade are being paid their salary in the pay scale of  Rs.5900-6700,  Since  the  correspondence  between   the Ministry of Law and Justice and the High Court did not yield to  the result of the selection grade scale pay to  all  the Additional  District  & Sessions Judges and  the  Chief  and Addl.    Metropolitan  Magistrates,  as  mentioned  in   the Schedule,  the above writ petition came to be filed and  the High  Court  found that since all the  posts  of  Additional District  & Sessions Judges, Chief and  Addl.   Metropolitan Magistrates   are   inter-transferable   posts   and   being discharging the same duties, they are entitled to "equal pay for equal work".  The difference of pay to Chief Justice  of the  Supreme  Court and Judges of the Supreme  Court,  Chief Justice  and Judges of High Courts is only Rs. 1,000/-,  the same parity be maintained for Selection Grade and Time Scale Addi- 581 tional,  District  & Sessions Judges.   Therefore,  all  the Additional/ District & Sessions Judges, Chief and Additional Metropolitan  Magistrates  are  entitled  to  the  scale  of Rs.5900-6700.  As  the  above scale was  given  effect  from January 1, 1986, all the officers are equally entitled  from the same date. 3.   Shri  N.M. Goswami, the learned Senior counsel for  the Union of India contended that the Selection Grade posts  are distinct and separate from the Time Scale posts.  In view of the  admission made in the affidavit filed by the  Registrar of  the High Court that the Addl.  Dist. &  Sessions  Judges working in time scale are eligible for consideration to  the Selection  Grade  on  "seniority-cum-merit",  all   officers working as Additional District & Sessions Judges or Chief Or Additional Metropolitan Magistrates cannot be treated to  be Selection  Grade  officials.  The very  distinction  between Time Scale and Selection Grade scale of pay itself indicates that  merit, ability, integrity etc. are criteria  to  grant selection  grade  scale  of  pay  and  officers  found  more meritorious  etc.  alone  are  entitled  for  the  grant  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Selection  Grade  scale of pay.  By the order  of  the  High Court,  on  the principle of equal pay for equal  work,  the dichotomy  has  been wiped out which would be  insidious  to inculcate  efficiency,  intrigity and honesty  in  the  per- formance  of judicial duty.  Therefore, the High  Court  has committed  manifest  error  in directing  to  pay  the  same Selection  grade  scale of pay to all the  officers  in  the Delhi  Higher Judicial Service.  We find considerable  force in the contention. 4.   Mr.  Harish  Salve,  learned  Senior  counsel  for  the Association  fairly  agreed that the dichotomy  between  the Time  Scale of pay and Selection Grade cannot be  wiped  out and  the  distinction is required to be  maintained  in  the interest of the service itself He contends that the Union of India having given the Scale of pay of Rs.5900-6700 to Group ’A’  officers  in the Union Territory, the officers  in  the Delhi Higher Judicial Service are also entitled to the  same scale of pay, since the scale of pay being drawn earlier  by the officers are almost same and, therefore, the  Government was  not  right in denying the benefit of scale  of  pay  to them.   He  also  contends that the  Delhi  Higher  Judicial Service cannot be equated with IAS or ’A’ grade officers  on the  executive branch of the Government.  This court in  All India  Judges’  Association v. Union of India &  Ors.,  J.T. 1991 (4) SC 285 treated the Judicial Officers  distinctively from the officers on the executive branch of the  Government and directed to consider higher uniform scale of pay to  all the  services throughout India.  Therefore, they are  to  be treated  separately and given higher scale of pay even  over and above the scale of pay of the officers on the  executive branch of the Government. 5.   Having   given   our  anxious  consideration   to   the respective contentions, the question, arises whether all the officers in the Higher Judicial Service are entitled to  the same  scale of pay of Rs.5900-6700 as directed by  the  High Court.  We think that the High Court was not right in giving selection  grade  scale of pay to all the  officers  on  the principle  of equal pay for equal  work. If that be  so  the Dist.  Munsif (Junior Civil Judge, Junior Subordinate Judge) etc.,  lowest officer in judicial hierarchy is  entitled  to the  pay of the Senior most super-time scale District  Judge as all of them are discharging judicial duty.  The marginal 582 difference   principle   also  is   equally   inappropriate. Similarity  of posts or scale of pay in  different  services are not relevant.  The nature of the duty, nature of the re- sponsibility and degree of accountability etc. are  relevant and  germane  considerations.   Grant  of  Selection  grade, supertime  scale  etc. would be akin to  a  promotion.   The result  of  the  impugned  direction  would  wipe  out   the distinction between the Time Scale and Selection grade offi- cers.  The learned counsel for the Union of India,  pursuant to  our order, has placed before us the  service  conditions prevailing  in the Higher Judicial Services in other  States in  the  country.  Except Gujarat which had  wiped  out  the distinction   after  the  judgment  in  all   India   Judges Association’s   case,   all  other   States   maintain   the distinction between the Grade I and Grade II Higher Judicial officers  or  Time Scale and Selection  Grade  or  Supertime scales   etc.   In  fact  this  distinction  is   absolutely necessary to inculcate hard work, to maintain character,  to improve efficiency, to encourage honesty and integrity among the  officers and accountability.  Such  distinctions  would not  only  be necessary in the Higher Judicial  Service  but also,  indeed in all services under the State, and at  every

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

stage.   Grade I, Selection or Super-time scale officers  in Higher  Judicial service is feeder source for  elevation  as Judges  to the High Courts based on excellent  qualities  of their service.  The faith of the people in the acceptability of  judicial  verdict  arises  from  impartiality,  honesty, character  integrity  and exemplary conduct of  the  Judges. Therefore,  honesty,  character,  integrity  and   exemplary conduct  are  necessary  imperatives  for  maintaining   the independence  of  judiciary, the  distinction  between  time scale and selection grade etc. are to be maintained.  It is, therefore,  imperative to maintain the  distinction  between Time  Scale officers or Selection or Super Time  grade  etc. officers  or Grade I and Grade II officers etc. as  enjoined in the service conditions of Higher Judicial Services in the respective  States.  Application of the doctrine  for  equal pay for equal work which has the effect destabilising  these vitalities  is clearly illegal, illogical and  inappropriate to award enmass selection grade scale pay to all the  offic- ers. 6.   But the question is whether the officers working in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service are not entitled to the higher pay than was being drawn by them.  It is seen that the Delhi Higher  Judicial Service is linked to their counter part  in the  executive branch of the Govt.  This is peculiar to  the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.  So long as the rules arc not amended, they get parity.  The Central Fourth Pay Commission had recommended for increasing the pay scale to all the  of- ficers   drawing  scale  of  1800-2250.   Though   the   Pay Commission  recommended for them at Rs.4100 to 5300, it  was revised  at Rs.4500-5700. For the officers drawing  the  pay scale  of  Rs.2000-2500,  the  pay  Commission   recommended Rs.4500-5700, but the Govt. revised to Rs.5100-6300. The pay scale  of the Selection Grade officers drawing the scale  of pay at Rs.2250-2750, the Pay Commission recommended Rs.5100- 5700  but it was revised to Rs.5900-6700. Thus it  could  be seen  that the Central Government had revised the  scale  of pay appropriately.  The Time Scale officers had been drawing the  scale  of pay prior to revision at Rs.  1200-2000.   It would  appear that the appellant had lumped the officers  of Delhi  Higher  Judicial  Service  drawing  time  scale  with officers in the first 583 category  and  directed  fixation  of  their  scale  of  pay accordingly.   It would appear to be so from the  letter  of the  Central Law Minister addressed to the Chief Justice  of Delhi  High Court.  In our considered view officers  drawing time  scale  should  be considered equally  with  Group  ’A’ officers with pre-revised scale of pay at Rs.2000-2500 which was  revised  by the Union Government at  Rs.5100-6300.  The reason being that the minimum scale of pay having been taken into  account,  it would be appropriate  that  the  officers drawing  the  Time  Scale should be  equally  fixed  in  the revised scales at Rs.5100-6300. Admittedly, 12 officers  and the  District  and Sessions Judge are  drawing  Rs.2250-2750 prior  to  the revision, they are entitled  to  the  revised scale of pay at Rs.5900-6700 as ordered by the Government of India.   Thus Delhi Higher Judicial officers who  have  been given  Selection Grade and the District and  Sessions  Judge are  entitled  to the fixation at revised scale  of  pay  at Rs.5900-6700  while the officers working in the  Time  Scale arc  entitled  to scale of pay of  Rs.5100-6300.  Since  the benefit  has  been  given w.e.f 1.  1.  1986,  the  officers working in the Higher Judicial Service arc equally  entitled to the arrears from 1. 1. 1986. 7.It  is  true,    as rightly pointed  out  by  Shri  Harish

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

Salve, that the functioning in the Judicial  Service  cannot be equated with the officers on the executive branch of the Government   in  the light of the judgment  of  this  Court, reference  of which is made hereinbefore.  The Delhi  Higher Judicial Service Rules require to be amended And they arc to be dealt with separately.  The Governor in consultation with the High Court should do the needful.  We arc informed  that even  in  the  reference to the Fifth  Pay  Commission,  the Judicial  Officers are tagged together with the officers  of the  executive  branch of the Government.  The  High  Court, therefore, is directed to take appropriate steps to have the rules  amended suitably.  It may be open to the  respondent- Association  to  make  a representation  to  the  Fifth  Pay Commission for fixation of their Scale of pay  appropriately independent  of  scale  of pay to be  revised  for  all  the officers  working in the executive branch of the  Government in  the  Union  Territory.   The  appeals  arc   accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. 8.   It is needless to mention that as and when the  arrears arc paid to judicial officers according to this judgment, it has  to  be  proportionately distributed  yearwise  for  the purpose of assessment of the income-tax.  The arrears should be paid within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order. In S-L-P. 12413194: The SLP is permitted to be withdrawn and is as withdrawn- CA Nos.1546 &1548/94:List on 9.3.1995. 584