Holding

Where the Shetty Commission recommended a higher pay scale for non‑judicial staff, the revised pay under the 6th Pay Commission must be calculated on that higher scale, and states cannot revert to the earlier 5th Pay Commission scales; special allowances and the advance increment must continue, and arrears must be paid accordingly.

Summary

The All India Judges Association and other staff of subordinate courts sought enforcement of the Supreme Court's 07‑10‑2009 order approving the Shetty Commission recommendations for non‑judicial staff. They contended that several states had reverted to the 5th Pay Commission scales after 31‑Dec‑2005, ignoring the higher pay scales recommended by the Shetty Commission. The Court examined the Shetty Commission report, the 07‑10‑2009 order, and the subsequent implementation of the 6th Pay Commission from 01‑Jan‑2006. It clarified that wherever the Shetty Commission prescribed a higher scale, the 6th Pay Commission revisions must be applied to that higher scale and not to the pre‑Shetty scales. The Court also directed continuation of special allowances, medical allowance, and the one‑time advance increment, and ordered payment of arrears calculated on the correct higher scales. Consequently, the impugned Gujarat High Court order was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

The correct interpretation of the Supreme Court's 07‑10‑2009 order regarding the duration and applicability of the Shetty Commission recommendations.
Whether states may revert to the 5th Pay Commission pay scales for non‑judicial staff after 31‑Dec‑2005.
How the 6th Pay Commission revisions should be applied to the higher pay scales recommended by the Shetty Commission.
The continuance of special benefits (medical allowance, special allowance, TA/special pay) and the one‑time advance increment.
The liability of states to pay arrears arising from the misapplication of pay scales.

Subjects

Shetty Commission6th Pay Commissionpay scale implementationsubordinate courtsnon‑judicial staffadvance incrementspecial allowancesArticle 32writ petitionpublic service

Judgment

[2015] 3 S.C.R. 686

A ALL INDIAJUDGESASSON. & OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA &OTHERS
(I.A. N0.297 OF 2012
B IN
I.A. N0.71-A
IN
W.P. (C} N0.1022of1989 ETC.)
MARCH 16, 2015
c
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAAND
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.)

Judicial Service - Shetty Commission Report (as
o approved by Supreme Court in order dated 7.10.2009) -
Implementation of-After recommendation of Central 6th Pay
Commission - The States understood that Sheffy
Commission recommendations were to operate only from
1-4-2003 to 31.12.2005 and after implementation of 6th Pay
E Commission recommendations i.e. from 1.1.2006
recommendations by 6th Pay Commission alone were
applicable - Held: Wherever Sheffy Commission
recommendations came to be approved by Supreme Court,
a higher scale of pay was recommended for different
F categories - After introduction of Central 6th Pay
Commission recommendations, revised pay should only
correspond to such higher scale of pay recommended by
Sheffy Commission for the non-judicial staff of subordinate
G courts.

Allowing the appeal and the Interlocutory
applications, the Court

HELD: 1. Wherever in the Shetty Commission
H
686
ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 687

recommendation, depending upon the nature of job A
performed by different categories of employees, a higher
scale of pay came to be recommended for the non-
judicial staff os subordinate courts in the pre-existing
scale that existed prior to 6th Pay Commission
recommendation and on such higher pay scale the B
corresponding revised scale of pay in the 6th Pay
Commission recommendation as applicable from
01.01.2006, should have been continued and it was not
permissible for the States to revert back to the earlier C
scale of pay that existed under the 5th Pay Commission
which was directed to be improved in the Shetty
Commission recommendation for the purpose of
applying the corresponding revised pay scale under the
6th Pay.Commission recommendation. [Para 16] [700- o
C-E]

2. Therefore, it is directed that wherever under the
Shetty Commission recommendation Which came to be
approved by the order of this Court dated 07.10.2009, a E
higher scale of pay was recommended for different
categories, after the introduction of 6th Pay Commission
recommendations, the revised pay should only
correspond to such higher scale of pay recommended
by the Shetty Commission which alone is the proper way F
of implementing the recommendation of the Shetty
Commission as approved by this Court. [Para 17] [700-
F-H]
G
3. So far as special benefits such as medical
allowance, special allowance, or TA/special pay are
concerned such benefits should be continued to be
maintained from 01.04.2003 up to 31.12.2005 and after
01.01.2006 also. So far as grant of one increment at the H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.

.A initial rate in the pay-scale for all common category posts
as recommended by the Shetty Commission is
concerned, since th is Court in the order dated 07 .10.2009
directed that such benefit should be granted on the
existing pay-scale and if such benefit had been granted
B in the said manner, there would be no need for any
further payment by way of such advance increments to
be paid. However, if such one advance increment in the
existing scale had not been granted, that should also be
.c paid as a one time payment along with the pay and it is
needless to state that fitment in the respective scale
should be after the benefit of the said advance increment.
[Para 18] [701-A-D]

o 4. There is no need for making appointment of new
Commission, inasmuch as all the grievances of the
members of the applicants/appellants were duly
considered by the Shetty Commission when it submitted
its report in March, 2003. [Para 19) [701-E]
E
5. The direction in regard to the implementation of
6th Pay Commission recommendation will hold good
even for implementation of any future pay Commission
recommendation. [Para 20) [703-C•D]
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I. A NO. 297 OF
2012 IN I.A. NO. 71-AIN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022
OF 1989

G Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

WITH

C. A. No. 2943 of 2015 & I. A. Nos. 329 of 2014 in W. P.
H (C) No. 1022 of 1989
ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA . 689

Mahinder Singh, ASG, L. Nageswara Rao, R. A
Venkataramani, Arun Bhardwaj, Suryanarayan Singh, Ajay
Bansal, S. S. Shamshery, Ranjit Rao, AAG, Sanjay Parikh,
Mamta Saxena, A. N. Singh, Ritwik Parikh, Anitha Shenoy, A.
T. M. Sampath, TufailA. Khan, Jayant Mohan, S. WasimA.
Qadri, Sunita Sharma, Gunwant Dara, Sudarshan Singh B
Rawat, Prasenjit Keswani, B. V. Balaram Das, Anil Katiyar, D.
S. Mahra, Guntur Prabhakar, Prerna Singh, G. N. Reddy,
Manish Goswami, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Anil Shrivastav,
Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Rashmi C
Srivastava, Prerna Singh, Rajiv Nanda, Preetesh Kapur, Jesal
Wahi, Kabir Hathi, Hemantika Wahi, T. Mahipal, Nirnimesh
Dube, Piyush Gaur, Dr. Monika Gusain (for Kamal Mohan
Gupta), Asha Jain Madan, Pragati Neekhra, Naresh Kumar,
Shilpa Dutta,Ashok Mathur, V. N. Raghupathy, Ramesh Babu D'
M. R., Swati Selia, C. D. Singh, Asha Gopalan Nair {for
Aniruddha P. Mayee), Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Z. H. Isaac
Haiding, Ashok Kumar Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, Pragyan
Sharma, Heshu Kayina, P. V. Yogeshwaran, K. N.
Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, K. Enatoli Serna, Amit Kumar E
Singh, Balaji Srinivasan, Shibashish Mishra (for Kirti Renu
Mishra), Kuldip Singh, Gaurav Yadav (for Jagjit Singh
Chhbara), Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Ajay Chaudhary (for
Milind Kumar) (for Ruchi Kohli), lmtiazAhmed, Sunil Kumar
Jain, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan, K. Vijay Kumar {for Arputham, F
Aruna & Co.), B. Balaji, Rakesh K. Sharma, R. Shase, S.
Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Gopal Singh,
Rituraj Biswas, Rashmi Srivastava, Abhisth Kumar, Som Raj
Chowdhury, Sudeep Kumar, Gaurav Dhingra {for Ravi Prakash G
Mehrotra), Anip Sachthey, Saakar Sardana (for Avijit
Bhattacharjee), D. K. Sinha, Rachna Srivastava, Tapesh Kumar
Singli, Anil K. Chopra, K. V. Jagdishvaran, G. Indira, V. G.
Pragasam, S. J.Aristotle, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Neelam
Singh, Sameer Singh, Ashok K. Srivastava, Bharat Sangal, H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.

A G. S. Chatterjee, A. D. N. Rao, Neelam Jain, A. Venkatesh,
Vaishali R., Sudipto Sircar, G. Swati Pathgotri,A. Subhashini,
Aniruddha P. Mayee, Selvin Raja, Krishnanand Pandey, T G
N. Nair, Sibo Shankar Mishra, Kshatrashal Raj, Abhishek Vinod
Deshmukh, Kumar Shashank (for Parekh & Co.) for the
B appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. As
c the issues concerned in the above referred to I.As and Special
Leave Petition are one and the same, the same are being
disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Leave granted in SLP(C) No.737 of2012.
D
3. The appeal is directed against the Division Bench order
of the Gujarat High Court dated 07.09.2011 by which the
appellants prayer for direction to the State of Gujarat to
implement the Justice Shetty Commission's Report in view of
E the order passed by this Court by granting the pay-scale to
non-Judicial Staff of Subordinate Courts in the State of Gujarat
w.e.f. 01.04.2003 has been declined for the period after
31.12.2005.

4. In I.A. No.297/2012, the applicants prayed for a
F
direction to all the High Courts/ States/Union Territories to grant
pay-scales and other benefits of the 6th Pay Commission
recommendations to the judicial employees over and above
what was recommended by Shetty Comf!1ission with a further
G direction to implement the order of this Court dated
07.10.2009. The applicants have also prayed for a direction
to appoint a separate Committee/Commission for the judicial
employees to look into their pay-scales and service benefits,
pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission recommendations in the
H
ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 691
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

same manner as was done for the judicial officers for whom A
Justice Padmanabhan Committee was appointed in I.A.
No.329 of 2014. The applicants also pray for an order to set
aside that part of the Notification dated 13.09.2013, in
particular, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 by which the pay
revision and other benef~s recommended by the Justice Shetty B
Commission were restricted to the period 01.04.2003 to
31.12.2005 and to hold the same as in violation of the order of
this Court dated 07.10.2009. A further direction is sought for
the employees of Industrial Courts and Labour Courts to grant C
service benefits on the basis of what was granted to them by
the Shetty Commission and that the 6th Pay Commission
benefits should be granted over and above such pay-scale
benefits in compliance of the order of this Court dated
07.10.2009 passed in I.A. No.71Ain W.P. (C) No.1022 of o
1989.

5. In respect of the appeal as well as the l.A.s, we heard
Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for the appellants as well
as for the applicants and Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned E
senior counsel forthe State of Gujarat, Mr. Ranjit Rao, learned
A.A.G. for the State of U.P., Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned
senior counsel for the Union Territory of Puducherry and Mr.
Maninder Singh, learnedA.S.G for Union of India. Though the
prayers in the writ petition preferred before the State of Gujarat F
as well as in the other two applications are worded differently,
the sum and substance of the grievance of the appellants and
the applicants are that the order of this Court dated 07 .10.2009
by which the recommendation of the Shetty Commission
submitted in March, 2003 were approved and certain G
directions issued, were not appropriately implemented.

6. To appreciate the grievances raised on behalf of the
applicants as well as the appellants, the background of the
H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.

A Shetty Commission Report in respect of the staff of the
subordinate judiciary as submitted before this Court requires
to be stated.

7. By order dated 07.01.1998, this Court requested the
B Shetty Commission to examine the service conditions of the
staff of the Subordinate Courts and make a report about the
steps to be taken in each State/Union Territory for improvement
of the service conditions of the staff of the Courts. After the
said order was passed, the Shetty Commission took upon itself
C the task of examining the following issues :

"From the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court, it
becomes clear that the Commission has to undertake
the following:
D
(i) To examine the service conditions of the Court Staff
in each State/Union Territory and make a report (to the
Supreme Court) about the steps, if any, required to be
taken in each State/Union Territory for the improvement
E of their service conditions;

(ii) To examine the facts and circumstances peculiar
to any State/Union Territory placed before it by the
concerned State/Union Territory;
F
And

(iii) To take note of the points of distinction, if any,
between the States/ Union Territories which may be
relevant for the purpose of making the report."
G
(underlining is ours)

8. While carrying out the said exercise, the Commission,
based on the material collected, submitted its report and
H
ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 693
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

paraphrased the service conditions of different categories of A
employees working in different establishments and submitted
separate reports for different States. However, the nature of
consideration and its ultimate recommendations and its
reference to different categories of posts were more or less
identical. We are not concerned with the various other areas B
in which the recommendation of the Shetty Commission came
· to be made. At the present juncture, we are only concerned
with the grievances of the applicants as well as the appellants
which pertain to the scale of pay with certain other benefits C
like medical allowance, special allowance and special
increment which were recommended in the Shetty
Commission Report. In order to appreciate and understand
the crux of the specific issue, the recommendation of the Shetty
Commission which were made for the NCT of Delhi as a D
sample can be noted.

9. The same has been set out at page 27 4 of the
recommendations which is as under:
"F1nancial Estimate on the Reconn1endations State: NCI' of Delhi
E
(Centralised ~stem)

1·-- ·Catego.y ---r-~
I

- - - - - - - - ------ ----- ---- F
1 2

aass.w
Medical Allowance Net being To pay mt less than 17. 59
Grant of ~ven Rs.100/-pm Cannot re estimaed
R'anclimal Saie to Rs2610.3540 nw
Pems etc., of the Rs.255()..3200
Estt a Achrn. G
Subordimte Judi!f

i
I
- - - · - - - ------~-· ·-- - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - · - - - - - - -
J>dvem Sp!. All - Spl. All. <i FS.150/-12.09
Nil- llo!!1 .

-----~--------- ·-------·--
I
----~-----------··
H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.

A
1-~::::-E-StSe~:;:-1-~i~2~~8J~;~~~·--·----1-~~:;;~~---~~~-;---··1l·-;~----
Bailiffs . Rs.2650-4000 I Rs.3050-4590 . 0.42
II TA to PS/Bailiffs j1 Not being Paid I Not less than ! 9.60
Rs.200/-p.m. "

!~~:~:,Cle.ks- - ri~~.:~~f::·.~~:~~i:hS:-:y v~;:•c:l:•,~e; with-:~ l~--
B 1

I
1

! ________
1j ___ -· · _-·--- __ Jt[~~01-~s.6s_o~-_ _J ____
i)Gr Ill-Rs 4000-6000
11)Gr.II-Rs.SOOO-BOOO
v)Gr.1- Rs 5500-9000
:Or.III-
6000
~)Gr II-Rs 5000.
1
Rs4000- 1 Nil
1
2.88

I Four grades with Pay I
Ji Stenographen

I
scales:
! Existing grades
may be retained:
One more Steno
c -~)Gr.III- Rs4000-6000
~i)Gr.II-Rs.5000-8000
in the grade of
Sr.P.A. to be 21.06
I TA/Spl. Pay ~ii)Gr-I-Rs.5500-9000 provided to
I r,: JS • .P .A.-Rs.6500- selection Grade 9.54
IN'0 5 0 0
I i, otbeingpaid i
Dist, Judges as
E.A.
0.65

I1 I i
,)Working in NCT of
D 'Delhi Rs.150/- pm.
~i)Spl. Pay of
I IRs.200/-
EAs
pm to

in
1

Common In the pay scale of; 0 ne increment at I'
C•tegorv Posts: Rs.10000-15200 the initial ra!~ 0.63
I' 0.07
·1 Superintend
1 Rs.6500-10500 tbi:: pal£ sea Jc·
Rs.325/- 0.16
ent Rs.5000-8000 Rs.200/-
E il. I 0 fficer/ Asst Rs.4500-7000 0.05
Lib.cum-IO Rs.150£-
Rs.4000-6000 1.39
iii) Asst. Rs.125/-
/HC/Lib./H 14.17
Rs.3050-4590
CL/Sr.Acct. Rs.4000-6000 Rs.100/- 4.28
iV)Bench ln- Rs.5000-8000 0.72
Charge/Asst Rs.5500-9000 Rs.75£- 2.23
. Su ptd. Rs.6500-10500 Rs.100/- 0.67
Rs.150/.-
F V) UDC/Eng.Cl Rs.175/-
/ Record Rs.200£-
Keeper/Nazi
r/Etc.
vi) court
Asst./ LDC/
Insol.Cl/Ahl
med/Naib
Nazir/Copyi
G sts etc.,
Vii) Steno
Gr.Ill
Viii) Steno
G r.Il
ix) steno Gr.I
xi s •. P.A.
H . _____ , r.o~~.!. (~~-111_~· ~h.~) _;_ _____?.! -~1--
ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 695
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)

Note: Additional budget required may be about Rs.91.37 lakhs which is A
exclusive of D.A., HRA, CCA and other allowances, if any."

(underlining is ours)

10. The above recommendation of the Shetty Commission B
with the above modified pay structure for certain categories
alone was submitted as early as iii March, 2003. The same
came to be ultimately approved by this Court only in the order
dated 07.10.2009 i.e. after six years and seven months. As
the consideration of the prayers made in these applications c
as well as the appeal are mainly dependant on the said order,
the same requires to be extracted which reads as under:

"The Shetty Commission Report was submitted in March,
2003, pursuant to the orders dated 17.12.1997 and 7.1.1998 o
passed by this Court wherein it was emphasized that the
improvement in service conditions of the judicial staff is
necessary for the administration of justice and rule of law.
This Court, after considering the submission made by the
States/UTs/High Courts, has accepted the Shettv Commission E
recommendations and passed various orders. Finally, on
15.7.2008 this Court has directed:

i) the recommendations are reasonable and do not involve
any financial burden F
ii) the decision to implement the recommendations by all
States should be taken within a period of three months

iii) the recommendations will be implemented w.e.f. 1.4.2003
G
We are told that so far all the States/UTs have not
implemented the recommendations fully. Some of the
States have implemented the recommendations but had
given effect to the date later than 1.4.2003. Still some of the
H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 3 S.C.R.

A grievances of various officers are subsisting. In view of these
circumstances, we direct that hereafter these matters be
considered by the respective High Courts of the States/UTs.
We direct that:

B i) The High Courts. on judicial/administrative side. will ensure
implementation of the recommendations of the Shetty
Commission within a reasonable period of one year. The
High Court shall permit writ petitions or applications that may
be filed by the individual or staff association representing the
C various members of the staff.

ii) The High Courts shall also see that the recommendations
are implemented w.e.f. 01.04.2003.

D iii) There shall be benefit of one advance increment on the
existing pay-scale instead of initial pay-scale. In many of the
States, the same benefit has not been given to the members
of the staff, the High Court should also see that these
recommendations are implemented.
E
iv) In some of the States based on various other pay
commissions Reports, benefits had been given to the
members of the staff, these benefits. if any, given shall be in
addition to the recommendations given by the Shetty
F Commission.

In any case, if the members of the staff association/
subordinate staff getting higher benefits under any of the
recommendations of the pay commission/Government
G Orders, they shall be permitted to avail those benefits.

Office is directed to send back all the records, if any, to the
respective High Courts. A copy of the consolidated Report of
the Shetty Commission may also be sent to the respective
H High Courts/ UTs.
ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 697
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

I.As. are disposed of accordingly." A

(Emphasis added)

11. Therefore, after the said order, the recommendations
insofar as they related to the grant of certain benefits and grant
8
of different scales of pay as set out in page 274 were to be
implemented w.e.f. 01.04.2003. In paragraph (i), the High Court
on judicial/administrative side was to ensure implementation
of the recommendation within a reasonable period of one year
and such implementation was to take effect from 01.04.2003. c
In paragraph (iii), the benefit of one adv,ance increment as was
directed to be given in the recommendation of the Shetty
Commission was directed to be given on the existing pay-
scale instead of initial pay scale. Here again the High Court
was directed to ensure that the same was duly implemented. D
In paragraph (iv) it was directed that in some of the States,
based on various other Pay Commission reports, benefits had
been given to the members of the staff and it was made clear
that those benefits should be in addition to the recommendation
given by the Shetty Commission. Finally, the choice was left to
E
the members of the staff who were getting higher benefits under
any of the recommendation of the Pay Commission/
Government Order, they were to be permitted to avail those
benefits. The sum and substance of the order of this Court F
was, in the first place, that the recommendation of the Shetty
Commission was to be implemented from 01.04.2003.

12. As far as one advance increment was concerned, the
direction was that such increment should be on the existing G
pay-scale instead of initial pay-scale. Wherever any benefit
was· extended based on various other Pay Commission
reports, over and above what has been recommended by the
Shetty Commission, such benefit should also be given in
addition to the recommendation of the Shetty Commission. H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 3 S.C.R.

A Lastly, an option was given to the staff members to opt for any
better benefit-extended to them by the recommendations of
the Pay Commission through Government Orders, if the same
was more beneficial to them then what has been
recommended by the Shetty Commission.
B
13. Keeping the above outcome based on the
recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the order of
this Court dated 07.10.2009 in mind, we have to consider the
present claim of the applicants/appellants. As stated by us
C earlier, though the prayer of the applicants as well as the
grievances expressed in the Writ Petition before the High Court
of Gujarat did not reflect their real grievance, we could discern
from the elaborate submissions made before us that the
D applicants seek for a direction to grant the appropriate revised
6th Pay Commission recommendation to the corresponding
pre-revised scale recommended by the Shetty Commission
wherever such recommendation was made as was approved
by this Court in the order dated 07 .10.2009 apart from certain
E other benefits such as medical allowance, special allowance,
TNSpl. pay and one increment.

14. To appreciate the said claim of the applicants/
appellants more clearly, a reference can be made to the
F recommendation of the Shetty Commission with reference to
NCT of Delhi. In the category noted therein, Class IV
employees, Drivers, Process Establishment Employees,
Bench Clerks, Stenographs and common category posts have
been noted. Insofar as Class IV employees are concerned,
G while noting the existing benefits, it was found that they were
not granted any medical allowance and the recommendation
was to pay not less than Rs.100/- per month by way of medical
allowance. In respect of promotional scale to Peons, it was
noted that the existing scale was Rs.2,550-3,200/- and the
H
ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 699
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

corresponding higher sca)e recommended was Rs.2610- A
3540/-. Keeping that one single item for consideration in mind,
the resultant position was that after the submission of the
recommendation of the Shetty Commission and after the order
passed by this Court on 07 .10.2009, in the State of Gujarat
and certain other states; other than States of Andhra Pradesh, B
Kamataka, Assam, Punjab & Haryana and West Bengal; when
the 6th Pay Commission recommendations came into effect
from 01.01.2006 and corresponding revision for the pay-scales
of Rs.2550-3200/-and Rs.2610-3540/-was introduced by a C
misreading of the recommendation as approved by the order
of this Court those States took the view that the
recommendation of the Shetty Commission would come to an
end as on 31.12.2005 and that from 01.01.2006 they could
revert back to the revised pay-scale applicable to the original o
pay-scale, namely, 2550-3200/- and whatever revision that was
applicable for that scale in the 6th Pay Commission Report
alone was payable. Apparently, it was because of the said
understanding appeared to have been felt by those other
States, on a total misreading of Clause (iv) of our order dated E
07 .10.2009 in which it was directed that in some of the States
based on various other Pay Commission reports, benefits had
been given to the members of the staff and those benefits, if
any, should be in addition to the benefits given by the Shetty
Commission. F

15. It is relevant to note that by the time the said order
came to be passed on 07 .10.2009, the 6th Pay Commission
report had already come into existence and was implemented
w.e.f 01.01.2006. Therefore, when this Court directed in its G
order dated 07 .10.2009 to implement the recommendation of
the Shetty Commission as has been set out in the tabulated
format in each of its report, the State Governments appeared
to have misunderstood the same to the effect that such H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 3 S.C.R.

A approval ordered by this Court of the Shetty Commission
recommendation to operate only between 01.04.2003 and
31.12.2005 and that from 01.01.2006, the recommendations
ofthe 6th Pay Commission with respect to the revision of
various pay-scales corresponding to the scales that existed
B prior to the Shetty Commission recommendation should
operate.

16. It has, therefore, become necessary for us to make it
clear that wherever in the Shetty Commission
C recommendation, depending upon the nature of job performed
by different categories of employees, a higher scale of pay
came to be recommended in the pre-existing scale that existed
prior to 6th Pay Commission recommendation and on such
higher pay scale the corresponding revised scale of pay in the
0
6th Pay Commission recommendation as applicable from
01.01.2006, should have been continued and it was not
permissible for the States to revert back to the earlier scale of
pay that e)(isted under the 5th Pay Commission which was
E directed to be improved in the Shetty Commission
recommendationJor the purpose of applying the corresponding
revised pay scale under the 6th Pay Commission
recommendation.

17. We, therefore, direct that wherever under the Shetty
F
Commission recommendation which came to be approved
by the order of this Court dated 07 .10.2009, a higher scale of
pay was recommended for different categories, which we have
highlighted in the tabulated form in paragraph 9, after the
G introduction of 6th Pay Commission recommendations, the
revised pay should only correspond to such higher scale of
pay recommended by the Shetty Commission which alone is
the proper way of implementing the recommendation of the
Shetty Commission as approved by this Court. /
H
ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 701
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

18. As far as special benefits such as medical allowance, A
special allowance, or TNspecial pay are concerned such
benefits should be continued to be maintained from 01.04.2003
up to 31.12.2005 and after 01.01.2006 also. As far as grant
of one increment at the initial rate in the pay-scale for all
common category posts as recommended by the Shetty B
Commission is concerned, since this Court in the order dated
07.10.2009 directed that such benefit should be granted on
the existing pay-scale and if such benefit had been granted in
the said manner, there would be no need for any further payment C
by way of such advance increments to be paid. However, if
such one advance increment in the existing scale had not been
granted, that should also be paid as a one time payment along
with the pay and it is needless to state that fitment in the
respective scale should be after the benefit of the said advance o
increment.

19. Insofar as the other prayer of the applicants/appellants
for appointment of new Commission is concerned, in the light
of our above conclusion, we do not find any need for making E
any such appointment inasmuch as all the grievances of the
members of the applicants/appellants were duly considered
by the Shetty Commission when it submitted its report in March,
2003.
F
20. In the light of our above conclusion, we direct as under:

i. Such of those States other than the States of Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka, Assam, Punjab and Haryana and
West Bengal, wherever the Shetty Commission has
G
tabulated the financial estimate on the recommendations
in the report as has been noted and extracted with
reference to NCT of Delhi wherein any special allowance,
medical allowance TNspecial pay were directed to be
given on monthly basis, such payment should be continued H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.

A to be made w.e.f. 01.04.2003 and even after the coming
into effect of the 6th Pay Commission recommendation
from 01.01.2006 till any modification or revision is made
with reference to such allowances/ TA/special pay in any
future Pay Commission recommendation of the State or
B Centre.

ii. Wherever under the Shetty Commission
recommendation, a higher scale of pay is recommended
in the said tabular format for any category of employees
c apart from applying such higher scale of pay for the period
01.04.2003 up to 31.12.2005 as from 01.01.2006, the
corresponding revision should be only with reference to
such higher pay scale recommended and made applicable
to those categories of employees as revised under the
D
6th Pay Commission Report and which came to be
implemented from 01.01.2006. Instead of adopting the
said manner of payment, if any of the States had resorted
to the revised pay-scale corresponding to the scale of pay
E which was existing prior to the recommendation of the
Shetty Commission Report, the States are hereby directed
to rectify such defect and calculate the revised pay-scale
on the above footing as directed by us, work out the
difference payable to those categories of employees
F payable from 01.01.2006 and effect such a payment with
effect from the month of April, 2015 payable in May, 2015.
The arrears of the difference payable for the past period
ending with March, 2015 should be paid in one lump sum
or in installments, in any case within nine months from
G the date of this judgment i.e. on or before 31.12.2015.

iii. Insofar as one advance increment which was
recommended by the Shetty Commission for all the
common category posts for whom no other scale of pay
H
ALL INDIAJUDGESASSN. v. UNION OF INDIA 703
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

other than what was existing, is concerned, as directed A
by this Court in the order dated 07.10.2009, if such
advance increment had been paid based on the existing
pay-scale, there is no need for making any further payment
on that account. It is needless to state that if for any
reason, such advance increment on the existing pay-scale B
has been omitted to be paid in those cases the concerned
State Government should effect the payment as directed
in our order dated 07.10.2009.

iv. It is reiterated that the above direction in regard to the c
implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendation
will hold good even for implementation of any future pay
Commission recommendation.

v. Whatever pending applications before the High Court D
on the administrative side or on the judicial side shall be
considered and disposed of expeditiously preferably within
three months.

21. In the light of our above directions in this judgment, E
wherever any issue is raised by any of the employees working
in different States, such grievances raised by way of
representation or by moving appropriate petitions in the
respective High Courts shall be examined and appropriate
orders passed wherever it finds that such grievances are to F
be redressed, in tune with the orders passed herein.

22. In the light of our above orders, the impugned judgment
of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 07 .9.2011
is set aside, the writ petition is allowed and the order impugned G
therein dated 13.9.2013 is set aside. The I.As. and the appeal
are allowed on the above terms. There will be no order as to
costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal and l.A.s allowed. H