Supreme Court Directs Immediate Implementation of Judicial Pay Revisions

Delay in Judicial Pay Implementation is an Affront to Judicial Independence" – Supreme Court of India in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 643 of 2015) delivered a significant judgment directing all High Courts and State Governments to implement the pay revisions recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) without further delay. The Court, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, ordered the immediate payment of arrears, the constitution of grievance redressal committees, and the enforcement of judicial allowances.
The Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran expressed serious concern that despite its earlier orders dated May 19, 2023, and January 4, 2024, several High Courts and State Governments had failed to implement the approved pay scales and service benefits for judicial officers. The Court made it clear that any further non-compliance would allow affected judicial officers to directly approach their respective High Courts for redressal.
The petition was filed by the All India Judges Association, seeking enforcement of the SNJPC’s recommendations concerning the pay scales, selection grades, and service conditions of judicial officers, including Special Judicial Magistrates and Super-Time Scale District Judges. The primary grievance was the inordinate delay in implementation, depriving thousands of judicial officers of their rightful pay and benefits.

The Supreme Court had earlier, in its May 19, 2023, order, approved key SNJPC recommendations, including increasing the Selection Grade District Judges to 35% and Super-Time Scale District Judges to 15% of the cadre strength, effective from January 1, 2020. Despite this, several High Courts and State Governments cited procedural issues as a reason for non-implementation, prompting fresh petitions for enforcement.
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the failure of various High Courts and State Governments to comply with its directives. The Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers Association had filed an application highlighting that its members had not been paid their Super-Time Scale and Selection Grade benefits despite clear orders from the Court. Rejecting the excuse that reviewing Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and service records was delaying implementation, the Court observed that justice delayed in pay and allowances was justice denied to judicial officers who dedicated their lives to upholding the rule of law. The Court further stated that procedural delays could not be used as a shield to deny judicial officers their rightful dues.
The Supreme Court directed that all High Courts and State Governments must implement the revised pay scales and allowances within four weeks. It also ordered the appointment of a retired District Judge as a Nodal Officer within four weeks, with a monthly remuneration of ₹75,000, and directed that the Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary (CSCDJ) meet regularly, at least once every three months, to ensure compliance. The Court also mandated that all arrears of salary and pension be processed within three months.
Grievance Redressal Mechanism for Judicial Officers
Recognizing the frequent grievances of judicial officers regarding service conditions, the Supreme Court institutionalized a grievance redressal framework. Each High Court was directed to constitute a Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary (CSCDJ) to oversee the implementation of the SNJPC recommendations. This committee would include two High Court Judges (one with prior experience in the district judiciary), the Law Secretary or Legal Remembrancer, the Registrar General of the High Court as an ex officio Secretary, and a retired District Judge as the Nodal Officer.
The Court mandated that the committee would oversee the implementation of judicial pay, pension, and allowances, serve as a single-point grievance redressal forum for judicial officers, and ensure that proper medical facilities were available to judicial officers and their families. The Supreme Court emphasized that any failure to implement the committee’s recommendations within three months would allow aggrieved officers to approach their respective High Courts for relief.
Directive on Special Judicial Magistrates' Pay Revision
The Court also addressed the issue of Special Judicial Magistrates, who were previously receiving a meager sum of ₹9,000 per month. In its May 19, 2023, order, the Supreme Court had enhanced their remuneration to ₹45,000 per month with a ₹5,000 conveyance allowance, effective from April 1, 2019. However, the Andhra Pradesh High Court misinterpreted the ruling and denied retrospective payment. The Supreme Court firmly rebuked this misinterpretation, stating that the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s observation that there was no direction for retrospective payment was a complete misconstruction of the Supreme Court’s order. The Court made it clear that the arrears from April 1, 2019, must be paid within three months and instructed all High Courts and State Governments to comply without delay.
Clarifications on Risk Allowance and Higher Qualification Benefits
The States of Nagaland and Manipur sought clarification on two key issues. The first issue concerned the admissibility of risk allowance for judicial officers when civil officers of the State were not receiving it. The Court left this matter to be decided by the respective CSCDJ committees, after hearing both the judicial officers and the State Governments.
The second issue pertained to the eligibility of judicial officers for additional increments for higher qualifications, such as an LL.M. degree, at the Assured Career Progression (ACP) stage. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its previous ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Tejwant Singh Sandhu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2286, holding that judicial officers were entitled to such increments even at the ACP stage. The Court rejected the States' argument that multiple increments would result in unjust enrichment, clarifying that the purpose of ACP was to prevent stagnation, whereas the purpose of additional increments for higher qualifications was to improve judicial performance. The Court categorically ruled that judicial officers acquiring an LL.M. degree at different career stages were entitled to additional increments, regardless of ACP benefits.
Pension Discrepancies and Telangana High Court’s Compliance
The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of pension discrepancies. A contempt petition was filed by a retired judicial officer from Telangana, who was receiving a pension of only ₹7,160 per month. The Court directed the Telangana High Court’s CSCDJ committee to immediately address the issue and report back within eight weeks. The Registrar General of the Telangana High Court was instructed to place the grievance before the committee, and the committee was required to communicate the resolution to the Supreme Court within the stipulated period.
Supreme Court’s Firm Stand on Judicial Pay Implementation
The Supreme Court’s ruling in All India Judges Association v. Union of India marks a decisive moment in securing the rights of judicial officers. The Court has made it clear that delays in implementing judicial pay revisions will not be tolerated. By enforcing strict deadlines, institutionalizing grievance redressal mechanisms, and holding authorities accountable, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its commitment to judicial independence and fair compensation for judicial officers.
Failure to comply with these directives will now enable judicial officers to directly approach their respective High Courts for redressal. The ruling reinforces the principle that the judiciary’s financial security is integral to upholding its independence and ensuring the effective administration of justice.

Date of Decision: January 21, 2025