Judicial Pay Commission recommendations: 17 Chief Secretaries to appear before SC on Tuesday

supreme court of india
x
Highlights

The Chief Secretaries of 17 states and Union Territories will remain physically present on Tuesday before the Supreme Court over the non-implementation of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission's (SNJPC) recommendations.

New Delhi: The Chief Secretaries of 17 states and Union Territories will remain physically present on Tuesday before the Supreme Court over the non-implementation of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission's (SNJPC) recommendations.

In an order passed last week, a bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, ordered the Chief Secretaries and the Finance Secretaries of the defaulting states and UTs to "remain personally present" before it on August 27 at 10.30 am.

Amicus curiae and senior advocate K. Parameshar, who is assisting the court, apprised the Bench, also comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, that the states of Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Bihar, Haryana, and Odisha and the Union Territories of Delhi, J&K, and Ladakh have not complied with the SC orders requiring revision of pay scale and retiral benefits for judicial officers.

In an earlier hearing, the apex court had ordered “full compliance” of its orders by August 20 and cautioned the Chief Secretaries and Finance Secretaries of contempt action.

The Supreme Court had ordered the implementation of the proposals of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission, chaired by former apex court judge Justice P.V. Reddy on the revision of pay and pension for judicial officers, with effect from January 1, 2016, after a plea was filed by the All India Judges Association for the constitution of the All India Judicial Commission to review the service conditions of the judges of the district judiciary.

In its decision, the top court had said: "The work of a judge cannot be assessed solely in terms of their duties during court working hours. The state is under an affirmative obligation to ensure dignified conditions of work for its judicial officers and it cannot raise the defence of an increase in financial burden or expenditure."

Show Full Article
Print Article
Next Story
More Stories
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENTS