Maharshtra State
Judges Association & Ors. Vs. H.C. of Judi. at Bombay Thru.R. G. & ANR.
[2008] INSC 2132 (11 December 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 211 OF 2007
Maharashtra State Judges Association & Ors. .... Petitioners The Registrar
General, High Court, High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Anr. .....
Respondents
1.
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, 2 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 3 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.
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 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 5 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).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 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. Cadre Pay as per
Pay as per (Vth Source of recruitment Promotional Avenue No. (IVth Pay Pay
Commission) Commission)
1. Civil Judge
2200-4000 8000-13500 Direct recruitment from Bar Senior Civil Judge (Jr.
Division) 2. Civil Judge 3200-4625 10650-15850 Promotion from C.J (J.D) A.D.J.,
SCC, Addl. C.M.M. (Sr. Division) 3. Metropolitan 3700-5000 12000-18500 Direct
recruitment from Bar and by Addl. C.M.M. Magistrate promotion from Civil Judges.
4. Judge, 3700-5000
12000-18500 By promotion from Civil Judges and Addl. Chief Judge, SCC Small
Cause by direct recruitment from Bar. Court 7
5. Addl. Chief
3700-5000 12000-18500 Promotion from Metropolitan Judge, City Civil Court,
Metropolitan Magistrate and SCC and by transfer of Mumbai. Magistrate ADJs.
6. Addl. Chief
3700-5000 12000-18500 Promotion from Judges of Court of Judge, City Civil
Court, Judge, SCC, SCC or Metropolitan Magistrates. Mumbai.
Bombay
7. Addl. District
3700-5000 12000-18500 Promotion from Junior Branch Judicial Judge City Civil
and Judges Service. Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay or District Judge.
8. Chief Judge,
4500-5700 14300-18300 Transfer of District Judge or by Judge, City Civil &
Sessions SCC, promotion of Addl. District Court, Gr. Bombay.
Bombay Judge/Addl.
Chhief Judge, SCC/Addl. C.M.M.
9. District Judge
4500-5700 14300-18300 Promotion from junior Branch or by Eligible for elevation
as / Joint direct recruitment from Bar with Judge of High Court.
District Judge minimum
practice of 7 years.
10. Judge, City
5400-6500 16400-20900 Direct recruitment from Bar, by Eligible for elevation as
Civil and transfer of District Judge, and Judge of High Court.
Sessions promotion of
Chief Judge, SCC, Addl. Court, Chief Judge, SCC, C.M.M., Addl. Bombay. C.M.M.
and promotion of Addl. Dist. Judges.
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 8 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 9 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) 10 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 11 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."
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 13 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 14 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 :
15 (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 16 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 17 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.
18 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.) 19 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, 20 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-`-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 21 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
22 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.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
