DOGRA HERALD BUREAU
NEW DELHI, Aug 26
The chief secretaries of 18 states and UTs are scheduled to appear personally on Tuesday before the Supreme Court which has summoned them for non-implementation of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission’s (SNJPC) recommendations on payment of pension arrears and retirement benefits to judicial officers.
The top-most bureaucrats of Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Bihar, Goa, Haryana and Odisha have to be present before the apex court in person on August 27.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra has listed the plea of the All India Judges Association and 22 other similar petitions for hearing at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, according to the apex court website.
“I can see there is no substantive compliance. They will have to personally appear before us or we will issue non-bailable warrants (NBW) against them,” the CJI observed on August 22.
The direction came when senior lawyer K Parmeswar, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae (a friend of court), had told the bench that despite several orders and the extension of time, as many as 18 states and Union territories (UTs) have not complied with the SNJPC recommendations fully.
The All India Judges Association (AIJA) is seeking implementation of welfare and other measures for former judges and judicial officers.
The bench said the top bureaucrats will have to appear personally to explain the delay and rejected the request of various states that the chief secretaries be permitted to appear virtually.
On July 11, the bench had summoned the chief secretaries of 23 states for non-compliance with the SNJPC recommendations on August 23.
The amicus later informed the court that five more states have complied with the directions in the meantime.
As the three-judge bench headed by the CJI was not available on August 23, the officials will now have to appear on August 27.
While expressing strong displeasure over non-compliance, the bench had said, “We know how to extract compliance now. If we just say that the chief secretary will be present if the affidavit is not filed then it will not be filed.
“We are not sending them to jail but let them be here and then an affidavit will be submitted. Let they be personally present now,” the bench had said.
Though seven opportunities have been granted to the states, it appears that full compliance has not been given effect to and several states are in default, it had said.
The bench had made it clear that it will not grant any more extension to the states.
On January 10, the top court had said in its verdict that there was a need to maintain uniformity in the service conditions of judicial officers across the country.
It had ordered constitution of a two-judge committee in each high court for overseeing the implementation of SNJPC recommendations on pay, pension and other retirement benefits for judicial officers.
The top court had said it was a matter of grave concern that though officers in other services have availed of a revision of their conditions of service as far back as on January 1, 2016, similar issues pertaining to judicial officers are still awaiting a final decision eight years thereafter.
It said many judges have retired from service and the family pensioners of those who have passed away are awaiting resolution as well.
The SNJPC recommendations cover pay structure, pension and family pension, and allowances. The commission has also dealt with the issue of establishing a permanent mechanism to determine subjects of service conditions of the district judiciary.
