NEW DELHI: Every state must ensure that judicial officers can live with dignity, the Supreme Court said in a recent verdict, directing all states and union territories to clear dues of salary, pension and allowances payable to serving and retired judicial officers by the end of next month.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said that post-retirement conditions of service of a judicial officer, who give their life in the service of the institution, has a crucial bearing on the independence of the judiciary, and ordered each high court to constitute a five-member committee headed by a senior judge to monitor implementation of pay, pension and allowances to judicial officers in line with the second national judicial pay commission (SNJPC). The bench has told them to submit their report by April 7.

The ruling was passed on January 4. It was, however, uploaded to the court website on Wednesday.

The bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, “It needs to be emphasised that providing for judges, both during their tenure and upon retirement, is correlated with the independence of the judiciary.”

“Judicial independence, which is necessary to preserve the faith and confidence of common citizens in the rule of law, can be ensured and enhanced only so long as judges are able to lead their life with a sense of financial dignity,” the bench said on a petition by All India Judges Association.

The association complained that though the pay commission recommended revised pay and pension scales in 2016, judges and their families were yet to receive the benefits flowing from increased pay/pension though the authorities provided comparable pay scales to officers working in the executive.

In their response, most states and UTs argued that implementing the SNJPC recommendations would be an added financial burden. While the authorities were directed to implement pay and pension scales in line with SNJPC recommendations, the present proceedings dealt with recommendations relating to a dozen-odd allowances.

The bench said the State was 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.

“All states and UTs shall now act in terms of the above directions expeditiously. Disbursements on account of 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 29 February 2024.”

To ensure individual judges don’t have to approach the court to get their dues, the top court ordered the constitution of a five-member panel called the Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary (CSCDJ). The order requires the chief justice of each high court to nominate two judges to the panel to be headed by the senior judge among the two. The committee was to also comprise of law secretary/legal remembrancer, registrar general of the high court and a retired district judge to be also nominated by the chief justice.

Advocate K Parameshwar, the amicus curiae in this court, informed the court that 12 out of the 21 allowances proposed by SNJPC formed part of the sixth or the seventh central pay commission. Parameshwar told the court that the objections of various governments were mainly against increased financial burden, refusal to equate judicial officers with other government officers, and adoption of state-determined allowances than the one proposed by SNJPC.

The bench said: “It is a matter of grave concern that though officers in the other services have availed of a revision of their conditions of service as far back as January 1, 2016, similar issues pertaining to judicial officers are still awaiting a final decision eight years thereafter. Judges have retired from service. The family pensioners of those who have passed away are awaiting resolution as well.”

The bench said it would be wholly inappropriate to equate judicial service with the service of other officers of the State. The functions, duties, restrictions and restraints operating during and after service are entirely distinct for members of the judicial service.” Moreover, the bench held, “This court has categorically held that there is a need to maintain uniformity in the service conditions of judicial officers across the country.”

The court asked the respective committees to ensure modalities are worked out so that hospitals of a requisite standard with necessary facilities are empanelled for every district in consultation with the state government to provide meaningful benefits to judicial officers availing of medical facilities.