Salary not in sync, judges decline green panel job

Today, even as Delhi High Court judges are blamed for trespassing into the executive’s domain, a Division Bench led by Chief Justice M K Sharma took note that “there is no chairman for the last seven years…no Supreme Court judge is willing to take the post as the status of the Chairman does not commensurate with that of a SC Judge”.

Sources said the basic salary of the NEAA chairperson was 20-30 per cent lower than that drawn by a Chief Justice of a High Court (as per the Fifth Pay Commission). A Type VIII bungalow had already been earmarked for the Chairperson at Teen Murti Marg.

The Bench directed the Centre, under the circumstances, to make a “fresh offer to retired Chief Justices of High Courts” as the “post served a lofty end”.

As per documents filed by the Centre before the High Court, the only two offers for the post — during the seven years — were to then Supreme Court judge Justice P V Reddi and former Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Anil Dev Singh.

In his letter marked “confidential” to then Supreme Court Chief Justice R C Lahoti on July 30, 2005, Justice Reddi expressed doubts if the pay and allowances for the job were in accord with that of a sitting Supreme Court judge.

“It is needless to state that it is the minimum requirement that any person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court would insist upon,” Justice Reddi told his superior.

Justice Singh was blunt in his reply dated June 24, 2005 to the offer from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. He said: “I regret my inability to accept the offer as the terms are not at par with the terms of a Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of a High Court”. As a result, a quorum of three technical members has been hearing some of the major environmental issues of the day like the Rs 9,000-crore Indira Sagar (Polavaram) project, which may displace Rs 1.45 lakh people in Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa.

“The appeals before the authority are in challenge to the decisions of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. How can we expect an unbiased decision from this forum unless there is a judicial presence in the NEAA,” Ritwik Dutta, an advocate who conducts cases before the NEAA, said. He added that the authority hears about “eight to 12 cases on a daily basis”.

The HC had given the Centre 45 days’ time to “re-constitute” the authority and “clear proposals related to the appointment of the chairman and other technical members.