http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

PETITIONER:

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/05/1999

BENCH:

Sujata V.Manchar, R.C.Lahoti

JUDGMENT:

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.

Respondent No.1, Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers

Association filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High

Court praying that the State of Rajasthan may be directed to

provide to the Judicial Officers of the State of Rajasthan a

dress allowance of Rs.10,665/- initially and thereafter a

kit maintenance allowance of Rs.400/- per month renewable

from time to time with all consequential benefits with

effect from 1.1.1993. The State Government had, by a

notification dated 18.9.1992, provided a dress allowance of

Rs.1500/- once in every three years, to the Members of the

Rajasthan Judicial Service and the Rajasthan Higher Judicial

Service with effect from 1.1.1993. Not being satisfied with

this allowance, the said writ petition was filed by the

respondents. There was also another factor which led to the

filing of the writ petition. In a similar writ petition

filed in the Delhi High Court (C.W.P.No.840 of 1992) by the

Delhi Judicial Services Association, the Delhi High Court

had by its judgment and order dated 18th of November, 1992,

directed that an initial lump sum amount of Rs.5,500/should

be paid to all Judicial Officers in Delhi and that there

should thereafter be paid every month a sum of Rs.300/- as

dress allowance. In view of this judgment of the Delhi High

Court, the respondents contended that the allowance granted

by the appellant-State by notification dated 18.9.1992 was

inadequate. The Rajasthan High Court has directed the

appellant-State to pay to all Judicial Officers of the

Rajasthan Judicial Service and the Rajasthan Higher Judicial

Service a lump sum amount of Rs.8,500/- towards dress

allowance and thereafter to pay Rs.300/- per month towards

the maintenance of the dress. The High Court also directed

the State to consider a revision of these allowances every

four years looking to the escalation in prices. The present

appeal is filed from the above judgment.

A Judicial Officer is undoubtedly required to dress in

the manner prescribed by the relevant Rules of each State in

order to maintain the dignity of his office. The reason why

a black jacket and bands are prescribed for a Judicial

Officer is quite different from the reason why a uniform is

prescribed for peons, chaprasis, police constables and so

on. The latter have to mix with the public and a uniform

identifies them as belonging to a specified group of persons

who have authority or duty to act in a certain way or

perform certain services. A Judicial Officer presides over

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

a court and is quite identifiable by reason of the position

he occupies in the court. Nevertheless, in order that there

may be a certain amount of decorum and dignity associated

with this office, he is expected to dress respectably in the

manner specified. Bands and gown are an insignia of his

office. But whether for this reason the High Court can, on

the judicial side, direct the State Government to pay a

dress allowance or to specify the exact amounts which the

State should pay by way of dress allowance is a matter which

we have to examine.

Under Article 235 of the Constitution the High Court

is invested with control over District Courts and courts

subordinate to it including the posting and promotion of and

the grant of leave to all Judicial Officers of the State.

Under Article 309, however, recruitment and conditions of

service of persons serving, inter alia, as Judicial Officers

of the State is to be controlled by appropriate legislation;

and until such legislation, the Governor of the State is

empowered to make rules regulating the recruitment and

conditions of service of Judicial Officers. In the present

case, in exercise of its powers under Article 309 the State

Government has fixed the salary and allowances of different

categories of Judicial Officers in the State of Rajasthan.

A dress allowance of Rs.1500/- every three years is one such

allowance fixed by the State of Rajasthan.

The respondents contend that this allowance is on the

lower side, and should be revised upwards by the High Court

on the judicial side by issuing a writ of mandamus. They

rely upon a decision of this Court in All India Judges'

Association v. Union of India & Ors. ([1992] 1 SCC 119)

where this Court gave various directions relating, inter

alia, to the age of retirement of Judicial Officers, for

providing a working library at the residence of every

Judicial Officer, for sumptuary allowance, residential

accommodation and a State vehicle for a District Judge. It

also recommended an In-service Training Institute being set

up at the Central and State or Union Territorial level. It

also recommended an All India Judicial Service and a

uniformity of designation of Judicial Officers in different

States. The directions which were given were based on the

perception of this Court that the essential judicial

functioning of the Judicial Officers of every State was

affected by a lack of certain basic amenities such as

residential accommodation, a working library or a vehicle at

the level of a District Judge. The retirement age

prescribed differently in different States, was also

perceived as requiring modification for efficient

functioning of the judicial service. But the question of

appropriate pay-scales of Judicial Officers, though raised

by the petitioners, was not considered by this Court since

it took the view that it was not equipped to do so. It left

this question to be considered by an appropriate Pay

Commission or Committee as and when set up in the States or

Union Territories. In dealing with pay-scales, this Court

noted that there was a wide variance in the pay structure

prevailing in the various States and Union Territories. It

was difficult on the basis of the data which was made

available to this Court, for it to undertake the exercise of

fixing the appropriate pay-scales. The Court, therefore,

declined to examine the propriety of the existing

pay-scales. The Court did, however, give directions

relating to a library for the Judicial Officers since this

was directly connected with proper performance of his duties

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

by a Judicial Officer and a sumptuary allowance looking to

the circumstances in which the district judiciary had to

function. While considering a review petition in the All

India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

([1993] 4 SCC 288) this Court recommended that the service

conditions of the Judicial Officers should be laid and

reviewed from time to time by an independent commission

exclusively constituted for the purpose. And the

composition of such commission should reflect an adequate

representation of the judiciary on the Commission. This was

recommended in lieu of the present practice of entrusting

the work of recommending the service conditions of the

members of the Subordinate Judiciary to the same Pay

Commission which recommends the service conditions of the

other services. The Court gave these directions as

essentially for the evolution of an appropriate national

policy in regard to the judiciary's service conditions.

This Court once again explained why directions

regarding uniform pay-scales could not be given by the

Court. It said, "There was a wide variance in the pay

structure prevailing in different States and Union

Territories and in the absence of full details it was not

possible to fix appropriate pay-scales and hence a Pay

Commission or Committee should be set up to separately

examine and review the pay structure of Judicial Officers."

Dealing with library allowance it observed, (at page 308),

"By the judgment under review this Court had directed a

residential office-cum-library allowance to the subordinate

judges because law books were the essential tools of a

Judicial Officer. It was expected of the State to provide

every court with upto date text and commentaries on the

relevant statutes and law journals which report decisions of

the High Court and the Supreme Court for the use of the

judges and since the various State Governments had

consistently failed to provide this primary facility to the

courts, it became necessary for the court to direct the

payment of residential office-cum-library allowance." The

Court made it clear that this was essential for proper

performance of duties by the Judicial Officers. The

direction, however, to give sumptuary allowance to the

District Judge was deleted in the review judgment because

the Court's attention was drawn to the facility available to

the District Judges to incur expenses for official meetings

from the funds at the disposal of the court.

In our view, any piecemeal determination of individual

allowances which go to form the total pay packet of a

judicial officer, by different High Courts by issuing writs

of mandamus would go counter to the very purpose of setting

up a National Judicial Pay Commission. It would also not be

appropriate for any High Court to give directions in its own

State regarding a particular allowance without examining the

relative conditions of Judicial Officers and the total pay

packets which are received by Judicial Officers in other

States.

Both these judgments which deal extensively with the

service conditions of Judicial Officers and their essential

requirements for functioning efficiently as such officers,

make no reference to a dress allowance. This Court left the

question of pay and allowances to be determined by an

appropriate Pay Commission or Committee. We are informed

that the first National Judicial Pay Commission which has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

been constituted has, as one of its terms of reference, the

following:

"(b) To examine the present structure of emoluments

and conditions of service of Judicial Officers in the State

and Union Territories taking into account the total packet

of benefits available to them and make suitable

recommendations having regard, among other relevant factors,

to the existing relativities in the pay structure between

the officers belonging to the Subordinate Judicial Service

vis-a-vis other civil servants."

Constitutional discipline also requires that the

constitutional provisions must be followed by the High

Courts. Article 309 puts the responsibility of deciding

appropriate service conditions on the State. The concerned

High Courts can play an effective administrative role in

fixation of appropriate service conditions of judicial

officers when backed by recommendations of an expert Pay

Commission in which the judiciary has an important say. In

the present case, the appellant- State of Rajasthan has

pointed out that there is no uniformityg regarding the

granting of dress allowance and on kit maintenance allowance

admissible to the Judicial Officers in different States.

For example, in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamil

Nadu, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Kerala, Karnataka and Jammu &

Kashmir no such allowances are being paid at all. In the

States of Punjab and Haryana also no such allowances are

being paid although some Judicial Officers have filed a writ

petition in the High Court claiming such allowances. In the

State of Uttar Pradesh, Judicial Officers who are working in

the courts are allowed Rs.300/- per month towards purchase

of law books and maintenance of dress. In the State of

Orissa, Rs.1500/- as a lump sum amount is given to each

Judicial Officer in the rank of Munsiff, SDJM and Sub- Judge

once in a block of three years. While in West Bengal

Rs.500/- are allowed to the Judicial Officers once in two

years. No kit maintenance allowance is being paid to them.

In this context, therefore, there was no occasion for the

High Court to issue a writ of mandamus in the manner in

which it has done. The State of Rajasthan has also pointed

out that a number of Judicial Officers are working in

non-judicial posts. While so working, they are not required

to wear any specified dress.

Whether a separate allowance for dress should or

should not be granted also depends upon the total pay packet

of the officer, his rank and status in society and whether

in the context of his overall emoluments, it is necessary to

give him a separate allowance. Employees in Class IV are

normally given these allowances because their pay packets

are perceived as at the lowest levels. One cannot ipso

facto assume that the same logic will apply to Judicial

Officers until we have an overall examination of their

service conditions and a report from the National Judicial

Pay Commission. In the judgments which were cited, this

Court felt compelled to intervene only to ensure that proper

functioning of the judicial officers was not affected.

Unless the concerned service condition can be perceived as

seriously affecting proper discharge of judicial duties, the

High Court should not issue a mandamus directing the State

to pay certain amounts to the judicial officers.

Our attention was also drawn to the observations of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

this Court in M.P.Oil Extraction & Anr. v. State of M.P.

& Ors. ([1997] 7 SCC 592 at 611 para 41) to the effect that

the executive authority of the State must be held to be

within its competence to frame a policy for the

administration of the State. Unless the policy framed is

absolutely capricious and, not informed by any reason

whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary thereby

offending Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court should

not interfere with the policy decision of the executive. In

Mallikarjuna Rao & Ors. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

([1990] 2 SCC 707 at pages 713-714) also this Court has

observed that the Court should not require the executive to

exercise its rule-making power in any specific manner.

Neither of these cases, however, deals with service

conditions of judicial officers. In the present case,

looking to the parameters laid down by the Constitution and

all the above decisions, the quantum of dress allowance or

Kit maintenance allowance was not required to be determined

by the High Court in the manner in which it has done.

The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore,

cannot be sustained. It is, however, pointed out by the

appellants that in November, 1998, the State Government has

decided to increase the uniform allowance from the existing

rate of Rs.1500/- to Rs.3000/- in a block of three years.

Learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan has

also stated before us that the State will pay the increased

allowance as specified in its letter of 20.11.1998 addressed

to the Advocate-on- Record by the Principal Secretary to the

Government and issued by the Finance Department. The

appellants are directed to pay the uniform allowance of

Rs.3000/- in a block of three years accordingly.

The appeal is allowed with the above direction. There

will, however, be no order as to costs.