30% basic pay hike for judicial officers: HC asks chief secretary why SC directions not implementedhttps://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/pay-hike-judicial-officers-hc-asks-chief-secretary-why-sc-directions-not-implemented-5686372/

30% basic pay hike for judicial officers: HC asks chief secretary why SC directions not implemented

The court was hearing a petition moved by the Maharashtra state judges association, stating that on March 27, 2018, the Supreme Court had directed extension of interim relief of 30 per cent increase in basic pay with accrued increments, to be paid to all cadres/ranks of judicial officers.

mumbai, supreme court, bombay high court, pay hike, judicial officers, maharashtra, mumbai news, indian express news
The court said the arrears, payable to the judicial officers recommended by the Justice Reddy Commission, shall be paid before June 30, 2018. (Representational Image)

The Bombay High Court recently directed Maharashtra’s Chief Secretary to file an affidavit, explaining why Supreme Court directives — extending interim relief of 30 per cent increase in basic pay with accrued increments for judicial officers in labour and industrial courts — have not been implemented.

The court was hearing a petition moved by the Maharashtra state judges association, stating that on March 27, 2018, the Supreme Court had directed extension of interim relief of 30 per cent increase in basic pay with accrued increments, to be paid to all cadres/ranks of judicial officers. The court said the arrears, payable to the judicial officers recommended by the Justice Reddy Commission, shall be paid before June 30, 2018.

Pralhad Paranjape, the advocate for the petitioner, told the court that so far as Maharashtra is concerned, the directives are equally applicable and it is obligatory for the state to implement the apex court’s directions. He added that these directives have not been implemented for members of labour and industrial courts. He said the directives had been implemented for officers of subordinate judiciary.

The petitioner added that there is no reason for exclusion of judicial officers from the cadre of industrial and labour courts from these benefits. Assistant government pleader P P More said the issue is being considered and appropriate steps are being taken.

A division bench of Justice R M Borde and Justice N J Jamadar said, “It has not been clarified as to why the time frame as regards extension of benefit has not been adhered to or why there is exclusion of claim of judicial officers functioning in labour and industrial courts.”