LexALL INDIA JUDGES ASSON. & OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 3 S.C.R. 686 ALL INDIAJUDGESASSON. & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (I.A. N0.297 OF 2012 IN I.A. N0.71-A IN W.P. (C} N0.1022of1989 ETC.) MARCH 16, 2015 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAAND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) Judicial Service - Shetty Commission Report (as o approved by Supreme Court in order dated 7.10.2009) - Implementation of-After recommendation of Central 6th Pay Commission - The States understood that Sheffy Commission recommendations were to operate only from 1-4-2003 to 31.12.2005 and after implementation of 6th Pay E Commission recommendations i.e. from 1.1.2006 recommendations by 6th Pay Commission alone were applicable - Held: Wherever Sheffy Commission recommendations came to be approved by Supreme Court, a higher scale of pay was recommended for different F categories - After introduction of Central 6th Pay Commission recommendations, revised pay should only correspond to such higher scale of pay recommended by Sheffy Commission for the non-judicial staff of subordinate G courts. H Allowing the appeal and the Interlocutory applications, the Court HELD: 1. Wherever in the Shetty Commission 686 ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 687 recommendation, depending upon the nature of job A performed by different categories of employees, a higher scale of pay came to be recommended for the non- judicial staff os subordinate courts in the pre-existing scale that existed prior to 6th Pay Commission recommendation and on such higher pay scale the B corresponding revised scale of pay in the 6th Pay Commission recommendation as applicable from 01.01.2006, should have been continued and it was not permissible for the States to revert back to the earlier C scale of pay that existed under the 5th Pay Commission which was directed to be improved in the Shetty Commission recommendation for the purpose of applying the corresponding revised pay scale under the 6th Pay.Commission recommendation. [Para 16] [700- o C-E] 2. Therefore, it is directed that wherever under the Shetty Commission recommendation Which came to be approved by the order of this Court dated 07.10.2009, a E higher scale of pay was recommended for different categories, after the introduction of 6th Pay Commission recommendations, the revised pay should only correspond to such higher scale of pay recommended by the Shetty Commission which alone is the proper way F of implementing the recommendation of the Shetty Commission as approved by this Court. [Para 17] [700- F-H] 3. So far as special benefits such as medical G allowance, special allowance, or TA/special pay are concerned such benefits should be continued to be maintained from 01.04.2003 up to 31.12.2005 and after 01.01.2006 also. So far as grant of one increment at the H 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. .A initial rate in the pay-scale for all common category posts as recommended by the Shetty Commission is concerned, since th is Court in the order dated 07 .10.2009 directed that such benefit should be granted on the existing pay-scale and if such benefit had been granted B in the said manner, there would be no need for any further payment by way of such advance increments to be paid. However, if such one advance increment in the existing scale had not been granted, that should also be .c paid as a one time payment along with the pay and it is needless to state that fitment in the respective scale should be after the benefit of the said advance increment. [Para 18] [701-A-D] o 4. There is no need for making appointment of new E F Commission, inasmuch as all the grievances of the members of the applicants/appellants were duly considered by the Shetty Commission when it submitted its report in March, 2003. [Para 19) [701-E] 5. The direction in regard to the implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendation will hold good even for implementation of any future pay Commission recommendation. [Para 20) [703-Cā¢D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I. A NO. 297 OF 2012 IN I.A. NO. 71-AIN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022 OF 1989 G Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India WITH C. A. No. 2943 of 2015 & I. A. Nos. 329 of 2014 in W. P. H (C) No. 1022 of 1989 ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA . 689 Mahinder Singh, ASG, L. Nageswara Rao, R. A Venkataramani, Arun Bhardwaj, Suryanarayan Singh, Ajay Bansal, S. S. Shamshery, Ranjit Rao, AAG, Sanjay Parikh, Mamta Saxena, A. N. Si
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.