ABRAHAM MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The rights and liberties flowing from the recommendation given by the "First National Judicial Commission", which is otherwise called as 'Shetty Commission' and implementation of the same by the Government, based on the recommendation given by the High Court of Kerala in so far as it relates to the Judicial Officers who have been deputed to the High Court, is the subject matter involved in this writ petition. The sequence of events is as follows. The petitioners herein who are working as 'Senior District Judges' in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service were identified by the High Court, who were called upon to occupy the offices concerned and are continuing for the past few years. The First National Judicial Pay Commission ('Shetty Commission' for short) recommended that 'special pay' may be granted to the serving Judicial Officers who are having considerable administrative work 'beyond the Court hours'. The said recommendation was made, after analysing the facts and figures with regard to the nature of duty, job specification, extent of work that is being discharged, various functions attached to particular posts and such other relevant aspects. The recommendation of the said expert body was in fact accepted by the Apex Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2002 AIR(SC) 1752. There was a specific stipulation in the said recommendation of the 'Shetty Commission' that the High Courts will be at liberty to evolve necessary principles, on the basis of which the 'special pay' was to be given to the different categories of the Judicial Officers in the State, more so, since the Commission was having no sufficient data/materials in this regard. It was in the said circumstance, that the matter was considered by the High Court of Kerala, on whose recommendation Ext. P1 order dated 31/10/2006 was issued by the 1st respondent/State, granting special pay to the different categories of Judicial Officers as aforesaid.

(2.) However, it was noted that the Government, while passing Ext. P1 order, did not say anything about the serving officers in the High Court on deputation. Since the case of the writ petitioners was also liable to be considered in terms of the Shetty Commission recommendation, the High Court considered the matter and sent Ext. P2 recommendation to the Government on 15/11/2006 to look into the matter and to sanction the benefit to the deputationists serving the High Court in different categories. On receipt of the said recommendation, the Government, even without any proper application of mind, simply rejected the same as per Ext. P3, saying that the recommendation of the Judicial Commission was only in respect of Judicial Officers who were having considerable administrative work 'outside the Court hours', which does not apply to the deputationists serving the High Court.

(3.) The fallacy in the above observation was highlighted by the High Court in the subsequent request/recommendation and sought to have the matter reconsidered as borne by Ext. P4 letter dated 28/02/2007. Meanwhile, the petitioners herein and three other similarly situated persons approached the Supreme Court by filing IA No. 213 of 1989 in WP (C) No. 1022 of 1989, which was pending consideration before the Apex Court, projecting the unjustified stand of the Government in sanctioning the benefits. After considering the matter, Ext. P5 order was passed by the Apex Court on 05/02/2008 which reads as follows: