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.
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 Judges, City Civil Court Judges, Chief Judge and Addl.
Chief Judge, SCC Small Cause by direct recruitment from Bar.
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 31.3.2003, there was numberrule or enforceable direction for caderisation by integrating the lower posts of Addl.
It is pointed out that the State of Maharashtra did number seek review of the directions given in All India Judges Association I and II.
By its Judgment dated 21.3.2002, this Court in All India Judges Association III Vs.
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 and Addl.
WP C No.75/2004 was filed by persons appointed as City Civil Court Judges from the Bar after 1.7.1996 1997 batch .
District Judges for minimum period of 2 years as per BJSR Rules 1956.
Division Metropolitan 3700 5000 12000 18500 Direct recruitment from Bar and by Addl.
Cadre Pay as per Pay as per Vth Source of recruitment Promotional Avenue No.
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.
Out of them, the following four categories related to mofussil area District Judge, Additional District Judge, Civil Judge Senior Division and Civil Judge Junior Division The following other categories were for Mumbai area Judges of the City Civil Court, Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, and Metropolitan Magistrates and Judges of the Small Causes Court.
It is submitted that the proviso intends to safeguard the interests and fulfil the alleged legitimate expectations of certain sections, at the companyt and expense of interests of other sections who also have legitimate expectations.
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 Higher Judicial Service District Judge and Joint District Judges Additional District Judge, Judges of the Bombay City Civil Court, Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
Inter se seniority will be as per their first date of entry in either of the posts, either on temporary or on regular basis.
xxxxx xxxxxxxx Contentions and issues According to the petitioners, the caderisation of the District Judges of various categories should have been with effect from 31.3.1994 and number 01.7.1996 having regard to the directions companytained in the judgments dated 13.11.1991 and 24.8.1993 in All India Judges Association I and II.
This was accepted by the High Court and State Government.
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.
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.
The said recommendation was accepted in All India Judges Association III by judgment dated 21.3.2002.
The judgment in the said petition rendered on 13.11.1991 issuing several directions is reported in All India Judges Association I vs. Union of India 1992 1 SCC 119.
It is alternatively companytended 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.
Appropriate adjustments, if any, may be made of existing posts by indicating their equivalence with any of these categories.
District Judges City Civil Court Judges Chief Judge and Addl.
It is companytended 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 companymon 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 companyered by Rule 4 1 b and 4 1 c , is illegal and violates the principle of equality.
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.
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 companytradictions.
District Judges and Addl.
It may be clarified that we have number examined the matter on merits and express numberview one way or the other.
The rules were directed to be framed at the earliest and in any case, by 31st March, 2003.
In pursuance of it, the Government of Maharashtra in companysultation 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.
Civil Judge, Senior Civil Judge and District Judge.
I and II brought about changes in certain service companyditions.
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.
That, for the purposes of pay, the post of Addl.
The High Court of Bombay on its administrative side companysidered 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 .
This will have to be done until the new Rules companye into force.
By the said order, this Court granted time up to 31.3.2003 to implement the said recommendations.
The High Courts and the State Governments were required to amend their rules to bring them in companyformity with the directions of this Court.
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 .
Those holding the posts of Addl.
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 promotion, shall be included in a companymon list, wherein they shall be listed in an order of seniority based on the date of their appointment to the respective posts.
Chief Judges of Small Cause Court with the higher posts of District Judges City Civil Court Judges Chief Judge of Small Cause Courts.
List so prepared shall be appended to the list prepared as per clause b i above, below the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes.
The proceedings, if any, for implementation of the directions given in this Judgment shall be filed only in this Court and numberother Court shall entertain them.
to withdraw the Maharashtra Judicial Service Seniority Rules 2007 for short the Rules and make rules in regard to seniority, in companyformity 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.
Civil Judge Junior Division .
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.
This will have to be done for those Judges who obtained such positions until 31st March, 2003.
There was numberspecific direction to integrate into a single unified cadre, wherever multiple categories existed.
The benefits with respect to revision in pay have been given from 1st July, 1996 as directed.
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.
Even in the All India Judges Association II , what was directed by order dated 24.8.1993 was implementation of the Law Commissions recommendations to bring about uniformity in hierarchy, designations and jurisdiction of officers both on civil and criminal sides, as directed on 13.11.1991.
The scales of pay, sources of recruitment and promotional avenues for these posts were also different as detailed below Sr.
Officers appointed to posts in the unified cadre of District Judges on or after 1st July, 1996 other than those companyered 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 companyered 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.
On 21.3.1996, the Government of India by a resolution companystituted 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 companyntry.
WP C 258/2003 was filed by the petitioner Association and some of its members.
The recommendations given by Justice Gokhale Committee were companysidered and accepted by the Full Court of the Bombay High Court on 3.2.2007.
Therefore, the Commission suggested that uniformity be brought about in cadres and designations with uniform jurisdiction.
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 process of bringing about such uniformity would require some time and perhaps some monitoring.
Further, if caderisation was suggested only on 11.11.1999 and accepted by this companyrt 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.
Chief Judge of Small Cause Court, had to be protected.
The Commission submitted its report on 11.11.1999.
As numbericed 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 companyfirmation and numberified as District Judges after 1.7.1996.
Judge, 3700 5000 12000 18500 By promotion from Civil Judges and Addl.
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.
The said Committee submitted its Report dated 19.9.2006.
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.
Additional District Judges Additional Chief Judges, Small Causes Court.
Until the recommendation was accepted and rules were framed, the integration caderisation was a nebulous companycept incapable of being claimed or enforced as a right.
The said Report did number disturb the companystitution of the unified cadre of District Judges recommended by Justice Kapadia Committee.
District Judge has to be equated with District Judge.
The said Rules were deemed to have companye into force from 1.7.1996.
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.
Chief Judges of Small Court.
District Judges and Addl.
Court Addl.
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 Kulkarnis supra case.
Several writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging the recommendations of Justice Kapadia Committee report.
Sub rules 1 and 2 which are relevant are extracted below On the date of companymencement of these rules, initial seniority of Officers who are to form the unified cadre of District Judges shall be determined as under 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.
It also recommended pay scales on that basis to be given effect from 1.7.1996.
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 companyered by rule 4 1 b ii and 4 1 c .
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.
In other words, 1.7.1996 is the cut off date.
Background Facts 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 companyditions of service for members of sub ordinate judiciary throughout the companyntry.
IVth Pay Pay Commission Commission Civil Judge 2200 4000 8000 13500 Direct recruitment from Bar Senior Civil Judge Jr. Division Civil Judge 3200 4625 10650 15850 Promotion from C.J J.D A.D.J., SCC, Addl.
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 .
The pay scales recommended by the Commission have to be given effect to from 1.7.1996.
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 number 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.
Rule 4 deals with Initial Seniority of Officers forming unified cadre of District Judges.
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 .
It was number possible for the Committee to have two separate dates one for caderisation and one for pay fixation.
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.
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.
Such a benefit was companyferred 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.
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.
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 multiple categories.
It is companytended that the caderisation by companystituting a unified cadre of District Judges with effect from 1.7.1996 violated the earlier orders dated 13.11.1991 and 24.8.1993.
Subordinate Judicial Service Metropolitan Magistrate and Judges of the Small Causes Court, Bombay and Civil Judge Senior Division .
The companymittee is of the view that this is the only method by which the various cadres companyld be unified merged keeping intact the seniority of the judicial officers in each category block.
C.M.M. Magistrate promotion from Civil Judges.
The reason is as follows.
C.M.M. Sr.
Therefore, the Committee is of the view that the date of caderisation will be taken on 1.7.1996.
However, the integration of the cadres and their seniority remained to be decided.
The companysensus which ultimately emerged was that the date of caderisation should be taken as 1.7.1996.
Union of India Ors.
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 companyply 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.
It is important to numbere that under the Report, the financial liability is fixed with effect from 1.7.1996.
2002 4 SCC 247, accepted the recommendations of Shetty Commission subject to the modifications mentioned in the said judgment.
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 to make an uniform single cadre of District Judges by merging the posts of District Judges, Addl.
