The Supreme Court on Thursday took a stringent stance against the non-compliance of 18 states and Union Territories (UTs) with the Second National Judicial Pay Commission’s (SNJPC) recommendations regarding the payment of pension arrears and retirement benefits to judicial officers. The Court has ordered the chief secretaries of these states and UTs to appear in person to explain their failure to implement these directives.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, leading a bench with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, expressed dissatisfaction with the progress made by the states and UTs. “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,” he declared. The states required to present their chief secretaries on August 27, the next hearing date, include Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, and others.
This directive emerged during a session where senior lawyer K. Parmeswar, acting as amicus curiae, reported that despite multiple orders and extended deadlines, full compliance with the SNJPC’s recommendations had not been achieved. The court is addressing a plea by the All India Judges Association that seeks enforcement of welfare measures for former judges and judicial officers.
In an attempt to address the court’s concerns, Senior Lawyer Amit Anand Tiwari, representing the Tamil Nadu government, asserted that the state has substantially adhered to the Supreme Court’s directives and that the payment of arrears would be completed within six weeks. He also requested an exemption from personal appearance for N. Muruganandam, the newly appointed Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, proposing instead his virtual presence. The bench, however, rejected these submissions, emphasizing the need for physical presence to underscore the seriousness of the matter.
Also Read
Previously, on July 11, the Supreme Court had summoned the chief secretaries of 23 states due to non-compliance, with five states rectifying their positions since then. The court has been firm in its resolve, indicating no further extensions will be granted and stressing the importance of uniformity in service conditions for judicial officers across the nation.
