Case title: All India Judges Association V. Union of India & Ors.

Case no.: Writ Petition Civil no. 643 of 2015

Decided on: 04.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice J.B Pardiwala, Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra.


The present writ petitions are concerning the allowances which have been granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers by Second National judicial pay commission.

This Court adopted the Second National Judicial Pay Commission’s recommendations on the revision of judicial officers’ salary and pension by orders dated July 27, 2022, April 5, 2023, and May 19, 2023. Justice P V Reddy, a former judge of this Court of India, chaired the commission.

The court noted that, with the exception of three allowances that were modified, the allowances recommended by the First National Judicial Pay Commission, also known as the Shetty Commission, were upheld by this Court in All India Judges Association v Union of India in 2002. Following that, this Court accepted all allowances recommended by the subsequent pay commission, the Judicial Pay Commission, also known as the Justice Padmanabhan Committee, in its decision All India Judges Association v Union of India 2010.

In the report, the SNJPC took twenty-one allowances into account. Two new allowances are suggested among the SNJPC’s recommended allowances, and one allowance has two more components added to it.

The SNJPC has given state governments and union territories the opportunity to object to the allowances proposed. This Court’s record contains objections.


The objections said by governments are that there will be a greater financial burden and expense as a result of the rate revision or, if applicable, the new allowances. It is necessary to abide by the allowance payment regulations set forth by each State for its own administrative establishment. Judicial officers must receive benefits that are commensurate with those of other government employees.


The court on same benefits as govt. employees held that Judicial service is an integral and significant component of the state’s functions, contributing to the constitutional obligation to uphold the rule of law. Judicial service is distinct in its characteristics and in the responsibilities entrusted to District Judiciary officers to provide objective justice to citizens. The State is responsible for ensuring that the conditions of service, both during and after office tenure, as well as the post-retirement emoluments made available to former members of the judicial service.

The court on one of the objections raised by government that a financial burden cannot be used as an excuse to avoid the state’s mandatory duties. One such duty is to provide necessary service conditions for the effective discharge of judicial functions. There is also a need to maintain consistency in the service conditions of judicial officers across the country. Thus, the argument that each state’s rules must govern pay and allowances lacks substance. It would be completely inappropriate to compare judicial service to that of other state officers. Members of the judicial service have distinct functions, duties, restrictions, and restraints that apply both during and after service.

The court accepted the 21 recommendations of SNJPC and directed the formation of a Committee in each High Court to oversee the implementation of the SNJPC’s recommendations as approved by this Court. The Committee shall be known as the “Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary.” All states and union territories must now act promptly in accordance with the aforementioned directives. Disbursements for arrears of salary, pension, and allowances due and payable to judicial officers, retired judicial officers, and family pensioners shall be computed and paid on or before February 29, 2024. The CSCDJs established in accordance with the previously issued directives must monitor compliance.

By no later than April 7, 2024, each Committee operating under the High Court’s auspices must submit its report to this Court through the High Court’s Registrar General.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

rajasthan high court

Judicial Disapproval: Court Slams Deceptive Conduct, Imposes Cost, and Orders Relief Allocation in Writ Petition Controversy

Title: Geeta Devi vs State Of Rajasthan

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 620/2020


Decided on: 28/03/2023.


The respondent, Municipal Board, Bilara, has filed the current application seeking the recall of the interim order dated 14.01.2020 issued by the court. The nature of the case or the specific circumstances leading to the interim order .


In this case, the respondent, Municipal Board, Bilara, has filed an application seeking the recall of an interim order dated 14.01.2020. During the argument, the respondent’s counsel highlighted that the petitioner, along with four others, had previously filed a joint writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13679/2019), which was listed on 13.09.2019. The court notes that a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had considered the petitioner’s case on that day and issued notices without granting any interim order. The respondent’s counsel argued that on the same day, two other cases challenging the same impugned order were listed, and detailed orders with interim relief were granted. However, in the petitioner’s case, only notices were ordered. The respondent’s counsel further brought to the court’s attention that the petitioner(s) withdrew the earlier writ petition on 10.01.2020 without informing the respondent’s counsel. In response, the petitioner’s counsel argued that there was no concealment, as the petitioner had mentioned the filing and withdrawal of the earlier writ petition in the current application.

To verify the claims, the court examined the records of the earlier writ petitions and found that the petitioner’s case was listed on 13.09.2019, and notices were issued without granting interim relief. The court expressed shock at the petitioner’s actions, noting that after failing to obtain an interim order in the first writ petition, the petitioner withdrew it on the same day she learned about an interim order in another similar case (SBCWP No.15048/2019).

The court criticized the petitioner for not disclosing the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition and filing the current one with the same assertions. It emphasized that withdrawing and filing a fresh writ petition without a material change in circumstances is impermissible in law. The court found that there was no change in facts or pleadings between the two petitions and criticized the petitioner for attempting to mislead the court.

Judgement analysis:

In this judgment, the court expresses strong disapproval of the petitioner’s conduct and her counsel, stating that not only should the interim order be recalled, but the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The court cites an attempt to mislead the court and invokes the principle of res judicata, arguing that the petitioner, by withdrawing and filing a fresh petition without a material change in circumstances, has acted improperly.

The court emphasizes that the petitioner, by misleading the court, has secured an interim order and continued in services for over three years, causing an illegal burden on the public exchequer. As a consequence, the court imposes a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, payable to the respondent Municipal Board, Bilara. The Board is granted the authority to recover this cost from the petitioner’s deducted or deposited amount in accordance with the law. The recovered amount is directed to be utilized by the Board for the construction or renovation of public toilets for females. Furthermore, the court dismisses the writ petition and the stay petition. While expressing displeasure about the conduct of the learned counsel, the court refrains from taking any action against them, expressing hope that they would exercise caution in the future.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view full judgement