Chief, finance secretaries of 18 states appear in SC, say they complied with SNJPC proposals

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said the chief secretaries and finance secretaries of states which have complied with the top court's directions on payment of arrears relating to pay, pension and allowance to judicial officers need not appear before the court any more.

New Delhi: In a rare sight, chief secretaries and finance secretaries of 18 states and union territories (UT) personally appeared before the Supreme Court on Tuesday to apprise it of whether they have complied with the Second National Judicial Pay Commission's (SNJPC) recommendations on payment of salary, pension arrears and retirement benefits to judicial officers.

The top bureaucrats also sought exemption from personal appearance in future which was granted.

The apex court was hearing a plea of the All India Judges Association (AIJA) on implementation of welfare and other measures for former judges and judicial officers.

"We have no pleasure in calling the chief and finance secretaries of the states, but consistently the counsels of states have been absent during the hearings," a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said when senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for West Bengal, spoke about the state's compliance with the SC judgement and directions.

In a spectacle of sorts, the chief secretaries and finance secretaries of Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Bihar, Goa, Haryana and Odisha appeared in the CJI’s courtroom and were seen assisting their lawyers.

Some chief secretaries tried until as late as August 22 to avoid personal appearance by rushing to the court through their lawyers, saying they have substantially complied with the directions and pleading to be allowed to appear virtually. The bench, however, did not relent and said it cannot make exception for a few bureaucrats.

"I can see there is no substantive compliance. They will have to personally appear before us or we will issue non-bailable warrants (NBW) against them," the CJI had warned on August 22.

On Tuesday, the bench was satisfied with the compliance of its January 4 judgement and earlier directions by the 18 states and UTs and closed the proceedings.

It said the top bureaucrats need not appear physically anymore.

In case of some states, the court said their respective finance department authorities will have to settle within four weeks the arrear claims pertaining to pay, pension and allowances raised by judicial officers.

At the outset, senior advocate K Parmeswar, who is assisting the bench as an amicus curiae in the matter, said some states like Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi have complied with the directions.

Closing this aspect, the bench said individual grievances of judicial officers can now be looked into by the committee of high court judges set up for this purpose.

"We issue the following general directions: (1) Individual grievances be brought to the attention of the committees of judges of the High Courts including the issues relating to specific allowances.

"The committees... shall in particular ensure that a standard operating procedure (SOP) as directed in the judgement ... is put in place by September 30, 2024," it said.

In order to resolve pending issues like non-payment of allowances, the bench urged the committee of high court judges to meet once every month.

In the January 4 judgement, the CJI-led bench had said it has recommended setting up a two-judge panel in all high courts to ensure that the orders on pay, pension and other retirement benefits for judicial officers as suggested by the SNJPC are implemented.

The direction seeking personal appearance of the top bureaucrats had come when the amicus curiae told the bench that despite several orders and extension of time, as many as 18 states and UTs have not complied with the SNJPC recommendations fully.

On January 10, the top court had said in its verdict that there was a need to maintain uniformity in the service conditions of judicial officers across the country.

The top court had said it was a matter of grave concern that though officers in other services have availed of a revision of their conditions of service as far back as on January 1, 2016, similar issues pertaining to judicial officers are still awaiting a final decision eight years thereafter.

It said many judges have retired from service and the family pensioners of those who have died are awaiting resolution as well.

The SNJPC recommendations cover pay structure, pension and family pension, and allowances. The commission has also dealt with the issue of establishing a permanent mechanism to determine subjects of service conditions of the district judiciary.