Skip to content


Section Officer Brotherhood and anr. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18979 of 1998
Judge
Reported in(2000)1UPLBEC371
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 14 and 229; Allahabad High Court Offices and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 - Rule 40(3)
AppellantSection Officer Brotherhood and anr.
RespondentThe State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Budhwar and ;Shailendra, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateS.C. Sunil Ambawani and ;K.R. Sirohi, Advs.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredIn Hari Lal Sharma and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.
Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under.....s.h.a. raza, j.1. this writ petition has been filed by the association known as section officers brotherhood, through its secretary shri ram abhilakh mishra as well as by shri ram abhilakh misra, who is presently working as section officer in the high court of judicature at allahabad, both in representative capacity as well as impersonal capacity. the petitioners alongwith the writ petition, have also annexed a list of its members. according to the averments made in the writ petition, petitioner no. 2, shri ram abhilakh misra has been authorised to file the writ petition on behalf of the said association.2. by means of the present writ petition the petitioners have staked the claim for fixation of the salary of the section officers of allahabad high court in the pay scale of rs. 3000-4500.....
Judgment:

S.H.A. Raza, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the Association known as Section Officers Brotherhood, through its Secretary Shri Ram Abhilakh Mishra as well as by Shri Ram Abhilakh Misra, who is presently working as Section Officer in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, both in representative capacity as well as impersonal capacity. The petitioners alongwith the writ petition, have also annexed a list of its members. According to the averments made in the writ petition, petitioner No. 2, Shri Ram Abhilakh Misra has been authorised to file the writ petition on behalf of the said Association.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have staked the claim for fixation of the salary of the Section Officers of Allahabad High Court in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 with effect from 1-1-1986 and to give them all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary. The claim of the petitioners for the said scale is based on the ground of parity with the Court Masters of Delhi High Court, who have been getting the same pay scale which the Private Secretaries of this Court are getting in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1408 of 1993, decided on 21-12-1993.

3. According to the petitioners the comparative posts are identical posts in the High Court at Allahabad at High Court at Delhi having similar nature of functions are as follows :

Sl. No. Allahabad High Court Delhi High Court.1. Bench Secretary Grade-I Court Master.2. Section Officer. Superintendent.3. Private Secretary, Private Secretary.

According to the petitioners the above all categories of employees, working at Allahabad High Court and Delhi High Court discharge similar functions hence the petitioners who belong to category of Section Officer are entitled for the same pay and emolument which their counter parts have been getting in Delhi High Court.

4. The post of Section Officers, working in Allahabad High Court, are to be filled up by promotion from amongst the permanent Upper Division Assistant on the criterion of merit with regard to seniority.

5. It has been submitted by Sri S.C. Budhwar, learned Senior Advocate that before 21-12-1998 the post of Private Secretaries, Bench Secretaries Grade-I and Section Officers in the High Court at Allahabad were always treated at par with each other and they were getting the same pay scale with identical status. According to the petitioners the nature of work of the Bench Secretaries Grade-I, Section Officers and Private Secretaries of Allahabad High Court is similar. The Court Masters and Superintendents of Delhi High Court discharge similar functions and, therefore, on the ground of parity the petitioners, who belong to the category of Section Officers, are also entitled for the same scale.

6. On 20-3-1968 the State Government vide Government Order granted parity to the staff of the High Court with those of the Secretariat in the matter of pay and allowances with effect from 1-8-1967.

7. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court in exercise of his powers under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India made rules (Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff Conditions of Service and Conduct Rules, 1976) with respect to the service condition of the persons serving as the staff attached to the High Court at Allahabad, which came into force on 31-7-1976.

8. In the year 1988 the State Government decided that the employees of the State Government would be given the pay scale available to the corresponding status employees under the Central Government. In order to execute the said decision an Equivalence Committee was constituted under the Government decision dated 14-10-1988. The Equivalence Committee submitted its report on 30-4-1989. The Committee nowhere discussed the case of the Section Officers, it recommended the revision of pay scale taking into account the pay scale available to Section Officer of the High Court at that time, without considering the decision of the State Government that the pay scale to the employees under the State Government are to be given parity with their counter part in the Central Government.

9. After the submission of the report of the Equivalence Committee, a section of the employees working in various departments, raised their voice of protest, as a result of which the State Government constituted a Committee known as Anomaly Committee to consider the grievance of such groups. The Committee submitted its report. But according to the petitioners, even the report of the Anomaly Committee, did not make any recommendation with regard to the petitioners.

10. It was submitted that the Equivalence Committee ignored to discuss the nature, function, liability and area of functioning in between Allahabad High Court and corresponding High Court at Delhi.

The Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants Brotherhood filed a writ petition bearing No. 1408 of 1993 claiming parity with the corresponding employees of the Delhi High Court. On 21-12-1993 a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition. The main thrust of the petitioners in writ petition No. 1408 of 1993 was that their case was covered by the decision of Delhi High Court, rendered in Civil Misc. Writ No. 289 of 1991 in re, A.K. Gulati and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., decided on 7-5-1991.

11. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court, while allowing the writ petition, issued a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to fix the salary of the petitioners and other Private Secretaries, who are working with the Judges of this Court in the appropriate stage, in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 with effect from 1st January, 1986. The salary of the petitioners and other Private Secretaries should be fixed within three months from that day and the arrears, if any should be paid to the petitioners within one month thereafter.

12. The Delhi High Court was of the view that there was a parity of the pay scale between the Private Secretaries of the Judges of the Court and the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries of the Government of India and the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration. When the pay scale of the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the Government of India was revised, there was no reason as to why similar upward revision of the pay scale of the Private Secretaries attached with the Judges of the Court should not be made, because the salary of the Judges of the Delhi High Court, was the same to the Secretaries to the Government of India, The Delhi High Court also expressed a view that the status and allowances which are received by the Judges of the High Courts are much above than those of the Secretaries to the Government of India. In addition thereto, the work which is performed by the Private Secretaries to the Judges is not less, and in fact more onerous, arduous and confidential in nature.

13. A Special Leave Petition was filed against the decision of the Delhi High Court, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 26-8-91.

14. In Writ Petition No. 1408 of 1993 in re : Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants Brotherhood v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra), decided on 21-12-93, the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that nomenclature of Private Secretary in Allahabad High Court as well as in Delhi High Court is one and the same, whereas the nomenclature of Personal Assistant is different. In Allahabad High Court they are known as Personal Assistant, whereas in Delhi High Court they are calls as Senior Stenographers. In Allahabad High Court Personal Assistant is promoted on the post of Private Secretary, whereas in Delhi High Court Senior Stenographer is promoted on the post of Private Secretary. The nature, duties arc responsibilities as well as educational qualifications etc., of both the categories in both the High Courts are the same.

15. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Judges Association v. Union of India and Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 88, the Division Bench of this Court in Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants Brotherhood (supra), observed :

'The conditions of service of Officers and servants of a High Courts are to be regulated by the Chief Justice, and in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court framed Rules known as 'The Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1975 with respect to the conditions of service of persons serving as the staff attached to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Sub-clause (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules reads as under:

'If any doubt arises in regard to a particular post in the establishment being corresponding to a post in the State Government, the matter will be decided by the Chief Justice.'

16. It was further indicated in the instant case, this legal position is undisputed that whenever the pay scales are revised, similarly situated employees automatically get the benefit of the same. Thus it was although not necessary for the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to seek Government approval again and again, but as an abundant caution in exercise of powers under Article 229 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice recommended the claim of the petitioners for approval. Under Sub-clause (3) of the Article 229 of the Constitution, the salaries and allowances, in respect of the staff of the High Court are to be charged upon the consolidated fund of the State and funds or other money taken by the Court shall form part of that fund, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the State Government to give weightage to the recommendations made by the Chief Justice so as to maintain the complete autonomy of the High Court.

17. It was however, further observed in the instant case there is no question of Governor's approval, because the State Government itself took the policy decision (Vide Adhyay 2 Adhikar Adesh on page 3 of the report of Equivalence Committee, U.P. 1989, Part I) to pay central pay scale and granted Central pay scales to the Staff of the Allahabad High Court, with the approval of the Governor, but the State Government committed an error in not comparing the petitioners with their counter parts attached with the Secretaries to the Government of India, as well as the Hon'ble Judges of the Delhi High Court, who are holding exactly corresponding posts the Central Government, rather it compared them with the others in the Central Government,

18. It was further held that the doubt regarding equation of a particular post in the establishment of Allahabad High Court was to be resolved by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, which in the instant case stands resolved by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, while approving the claim of the petitioners, which was communicated to the Government by the Registrar of this Court.

19. While interpreting Sub-clause (3) of the Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court the Division Bench also observed :

'It is relevant to notice that at the time of framing of aforesaid Rules, the Staff of High Court was being paid the pay scales of State Government and not the Central Government, therefore, after the policy decision of Government of Uttar Pradesh to pay the scales of Central Government the terms of 'State Government' referred in Sub-clause (3) quoted above, be read as 'Central Government'. Accordingly, the question in regard to a particular post in the establishment of High Court, being corresponding to a post in the Central Government is to be decided by the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court.'

20. From the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants attached with the Hon'ble Judges of Allahabad High Court are entitled to get the scales of pay at per with their counter parts attached with the Secretaries to Government of India, as well as with the Hon'ble Judges of Delhi High Court. So far as the Personal Assistants attached with the Registry of this Court are concerned, since the Government of U.P. has itself decided to grant pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 to the Stenographers attached with the officers drawing pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700 or more, hence they are entitled to get same pay scales.

21. In operating part of the judgment, it was observed :

'In view of the premises, aforesaid, in our considered opinion, the claim of the petitioners are liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the present petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents directing them to fix immediately the salary of Private Secretaries, in the basic pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500, the salary of Personal Assistants attached with the Judges of this Court, in the basic pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 and the salary of Personal Assistants attached with the Officers of Registry (i.e. the Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700) in the basic pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200, with effect from 1-1-1986 (the date from which pay scales at par with the Central Government have been made admissible). The petitioners shall be liable to get the all consequential benefits admissible to them in accordance with law. The respondents are further directed to pay salary to the petitioners for the current month payable on 1-1-1994 in the pay scales as directed above. However, there will be no order as to costs.'

22. Being aggrieved against the judgment of the Division Bench in Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants Brotherhood (supra), the Allahabad 'High Court as well as the State of U.P. filed special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. During the pendency of those special leave petitions, the Allahabad High Court preferred an application for the withdrawal of the special leave petition. The special leave petition filed by the Allahabad High Court was dismissed as withdrawn, but the special leave petition filed by the State of U.P. was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

23. As we have mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs that the case of the petitioners of this writ petition is that the nomenclature of the post of Section Officer is Superintendent in the Delhi High Court, who are promoted from Class III post. As the Superintendent and Court Master of Delhi High Court were not given the pay scale of the Central Government, they filed a writ petition bearing No. 2756 of 1991 (Hari Lal Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.) before the Delhi High Court. They also claimed parity with the Private Secretaries of the Allahabad High Court. Relying upon the observations of a decision of Delhi High Court in A.K. Gulati v. Union of India and Ors., decided on May, 1991; S.B. Mathur v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad AIR 1998 SC 2075 and the decision of Delhi High Court in Sangram Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., CW 81 decided on 28-5-1982.

24. The Delhi High Court expressed the view that the three categories of the employees, Court, Master, Private Secretaries and Superintendent of the Delhi High Court are all or equal status and in exchangeable while the categories of Section Officer in the Government are not similarly situated and these posts arc not interchangeable. That is a material difference which exists as far as this Court (Delhi High Court) is concerned. By virtue of Rule 8(c) of the said Rules the incumbents can be shifted from one category of post to another as the posts are interchangeable. Referring to Sangram Singh's decision, the Delhi High Court held that what had transpired in Sangram Singh's was that the Private Secretaries and the Court Masters of the Delhi High Court had filed a writ petition, after the third Pay Commission Report, claiming parity of scale with that of Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration. In that case P.N. Chopra etc. v. Union of India etc., AIR 1981(2) Delhi 102, this Court (Delhi High Court) directed that the Private Secretaries and the Court Master should get the same pay scale as that of Private Secretaries to the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration vis-a-vis the scale of Rs. 775-1200. Thereafter, Sangram Singh, who was a Superintendent, filed a fresh writ petition, contending that he and another Superintendent should get the same scale as was being paid to the Private Secretaries and Court Masters.

25. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld this contention solely on the ground that according to the Rules these were equal status posts. It was accordingly decided that the Superintendents should not be treated differently than Private Secretaries and Court Masters, and a direction was issued to the respondents to give to the Superintendents the scale of Rs. 775-1200.

26. The Union of India filed a special leave petition against the decision to the Delhi High Court in Sangram Singh's case but the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being special leave petition No. 8934 of 1982, dated 3-12-1982 (Union of India v. Sangram Singh).'

27. Thereafter, the Delhi High Court in Hari Lal Sharma and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., in Writ Petition No. 2756 of 1991, decided on 14-11-1991, following the ratio of the decision of this Court in Sangram Singh's (supra) held that the petitioners and the Private Secretaries must be paid the same scale of pay. We are aware of the fact that the scale of pay of the Private Secretaries has been raised to that of Rs. 3000-4500 as a result of decision of this Court. This will not make any differences because the functions which all the three categories or employees perform may not be exactly similar or identical but they are not very different from each other. As according to the Rules they are equal status posts in all fairness they should get the same scale of pay specially when all the three categories of posts are feeder posts to the next higher grade of Assistant Registrar. There is a common seniority list which is maintained and it will be incongruous, if officers on the same common seniority list holding equal status posts are given different scales of pay.

28. It was stressed by the Senior Counsel Sri S.C. Budhwar that under Rules of the Court 1976 the Private Secretaries were placed in Class II post and they were treated as par with the Section Officers while Personal Assistants were kept in Class III category in the lower status.

29. It was pointed out that the Bench Secretary Grade-I of the Allahabad High Court filed a writ petition bearing No. 26550 of 1996 (Ramji Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.,) claiming parity of pay scales with the Private Secretaries of the Allahabad High Court and with the corresponding employees of the Delhi High Court. A Division Bench of this Court partly allowed the claim of the petitioners with an observation that Hon'ble the Chief Justice after constituting a 'Three Judge Committee' should decide as to whether the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I is equivalent to the post of Court Masters at Delhi High Court. Finally the Bench Secretary Grade-I were granted the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500, as was applicable to the Court Masters of the Delhi High Court.

30. The Class IV Employees Association of Allahabad High Court, by making a representation on 27-4-1994 before Hon'ble the Chief Justice' of Allahabad High Court staked the claim for payment of same scale of pay which their counter parts in Delhi High Court, were getting. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court recommended the case of the petitioner Association for consideration by the State Government, As the State Government failed to take any decision in that matter, the Class IV Employees Association filed a writ petition on 6-2-1998 before the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition was allowed on 6-2-1998 by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, and the State of U.P. as well as the Allahabad High Court were directed to pay salary to the petitioners in the same pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 with effect from 1-7-1994 which the Class IV employees of the Delhi High Court were getting,

31. In the case mentioned in the foregoing paragraph 1 was vehemently contended by the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. that in the matter relating to payment of salary, allowances and pensions of the employees under Article 229(2) of the Constitution, no writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued, as the approval of the Governor was necessary in such mattress as provided under Article 229(2) of the Constitution. Repelling the contention of the learned Standing Counsel, the Court observed, that the staff of the High Court is under the protective umbrella of the Chief Justice. Officers and servants of this Court in the strict sense, may be Government servants, but they are positioned in entirely different circumstances and free from the control of the Government. Their service conditions are regulated by the Chief Justice. They are recruited under the rules framed by the Chief Justice and they cannot be transferred from the High Court to any other department of the Government. The control over them is vested in the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and this control, as said above, under Article 229 of the Constitution, is exclusive and not dual in nature, comprehensive in extent and effective in operation. It was further indicated that the Hon'ble Chief Justice is the highest functionary in the State on the judicial side. He is the head and heart of the judicial system at the State level. The proposal submitted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to the Government, although, did not require approval in view of the decision of Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants case (supra), has the imprimature of the highest judicial authority of the state, it is backed with the judicial pronouncements and it was expected that the impartiality of the recommendations could have weighed with the State Government in the ordinary course.

32. Relying upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Madan Lal v. Registrar, Delhi High Court and Ors., decided on 4-11-1991 where in the Delhi High Court has allowed the two separate pay scales (I) 975-1660 and (II) 1000-1750, Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants Brotherhood, High Court, Allahabad and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra), A.K. Gulati and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., in Writ Petition No, 289 of 1991, decided on 7-5-1991, it was observed 'Whenever pay scales are revised, similarly situated employees automatically get the benefit of the same and there is no question of Governor's approval for one simple reason that the Government of U.P. itself had taken the policy decision vide Adhyay 2 Adhikar Adesh on page 3 of the Report of the Equivalence Committee, U.P. 1989 Part I to pay central pay scales and granted central pa)' scales to the staff of the High Court with the approval of the Governor. That decision (Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants Brotherhood) (supra) which was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court, is a complete answer to the various submissions made on behalf of the State Government in that writ petition.

33. Referring to the letter of the Registrar sent to the State Government in the' month of September, 1994 the Hon'ble Single Judge observed :

'The employees of this Court perform no less onerous and arduous duties than their counter parts in Delhi High Court. The recommendations made by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice could not lightly be brushed aside or ignored by the State Government. The Majesty of the High Court, which the Chief Justice holds, should be beyond the high watermark of the controversy and cannot be allowed to suffer. The staff of the High Court is under the protective umbrella of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.'

34. It is well established that the decision of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Rule 40(3) of Rules of 1976 is final, in so far as it relates to the equivalence between different posts. This determination by Hon'ble the Chief Justice is not subject to any interference by Government, unless some other provisions of the Constitution has been violated by him. Certainly, the Government cannot interfere with the determination made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The seemingly innocuous act of the State Government i.e.. executive, in not according approval, which for the reasons state above, was not necessary to be sought, as held in Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants case (supra), amounts to a potential threat to the independence of judiciary. All such attempts of eroding the independence of judiciary have to be thwarted.

35. Summing up, the controversy involved in that case the Hon'ble Single Judge observed :

'The petitioners are claiming equal treatment with other employees of the Central Government, in as much as they claim post parity with the Central Government employees in the Secretariat, in the light of the decision of the State Government dated 14-10-1988 and the subsequent report of the Equivalence Committee of 1989. Since parity of post is not available in the Central Secretariat in view of Para 5.4 (2) of the report of the Equivalence Committee, the parity is to be reckoned with reference to the corresponding post in the Union Territory. Delhi High Court was, at the relevant point of time in the Union Territory of Delhi. Therefore, the only post to post parity, which the Class IV employees of this Court could claim, would have been with their counter parts in the Delhi High Court. A policy decision was also taken by the State Government that as and when there is a revision of pay scales of the Central Government employees, its benefits shall also be available to the State Government employees. The pay scales of the counter parts of the petitioners in the Delhi High Court have been revised and enhanced in the light of the mandamus issued by Delhi High Court in Madan Lal's case (supra). The petitioners, therefore, made a representation for the revision of their pay in keeping with the pay scales of Class IV employees of Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, after examining the matter, from all the angels, as he is empowered under, Rule 40(3) of Rules of 1976, equalised the post of Class IV employees of this Court with that of the Delhi High Court. In all fairness, since burden was to go on the public exchequer, Hon'ble the Chief Justice thought it prudent to make a reference and to seek approval of the Governor, though on the judicial side, as said above, such an approval was not at all called for. State Government set tight over the matter, perhaps on the assumption that if the judiciary asks for something that ought not to be done. In the normal course, the recommendations of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who happens to the highest functionary of the State on the judicial side, have to be respected and given due weight, In the instant case, unfortunately, the State Government did not find it even to extend the courtesy of sending a reply, one way of the other. The right pleaded by the petitioner is not an abstract right. They are not claiming any special privilege for any particular class of servants or consideration de novo of the pay scales, so that the matter has to go to the expert body like Pay Committee. There can be no dispute about the determination made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Rule 40(3) of the Rules of 1976, that the Class IV employees of this Court are performing the duties, which are not in any manner, inferior or distinct from the duties of the Class IV employees of Delhi High Court. The petitioners were required to be treated, with all fairness, in the matter. The principal 'equal pay for equal work' between two sets of employees, if they are discharging similar function but are getting different pay scales, is a facet of the principles of equality in the matter of employment guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.'

36. A special appeal was filed against the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Single Judge in Class IV Employees Association v. State of U.P. and Ors.. In the said appeal the Division Bench noted that the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1750 was still not available to Class IV employees of Delhi High Court. In these circumstances, judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge to that extent was reversed, but in all respect it was affirmed and in pursuance thereto Class IV employees of this Hon'ble Court were given the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500, placing them at per with the Class IV employees of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

37. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. submitted that by means of D.O. letter No. 6329/Acctt (A-1), dated 16-12-1998 the Registrar of this High Court has forwarded 'the Allahabad High Court Private Secretaries (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998' framed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India, to the State Government for according approval. In pursuance of the said recommendation the Government of U.P. issued a Government Order dated 20-3-68 by means of which the corresponding employees/officers of the High Court were granted parity with the corresponding employees/officers of U.P. Secretariat. In the matter of pay scales and allowances etc., it was urged that as far as the post of Section Officers prior to the year 1975 both in U.P. Secretariat as well as in establishment of the Allahabad High Court were known with different designation. In the Government Order dated 20-3-1968 the posts of Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent are mentioned at Serial Nos. 2, 3 and 5 respectively. In view of the aforesaid Government Order 20-3-1968, the Section Officer of this Court have continuously been treated at par with the Superintendent working in the U.P. Secretariat and this parity has throughout been maintained by the various Pay Commission and Pay Committee constituted from time to time. Reference was made to the decision of Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21117 of 1987, decided by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition by Nishit Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., in which various employees of the High Court including Section Officers staked the claim of parity vis-a-vis with the State employees. A Division Bench of this Court held that the discrimination is apparent and leaves that Court with no choice except to restore the parity between the employees of the Allahabad High Court and their counter parts at the Secretariat in keeping with the spirit and principle of the order of the State Government dated 20th March, 1968 and that parity has yet not been dispensed with or withdrawn.

38. It was pointed out by the learned Advocate General that the Section Officers of this Court were granted parity with the Section Officers of the State Secretariat with effect from 1968. So far as the Central pay scale to the Section Officers of the U.P. Secretariat is concerned, they were held equivalent to the Section Officers of the Central Secretariat. As the posts of Section Officers in the U.P. Secretariat were held equivalent to the posts of Section Officers in the Central Secretariat, they were given the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-, which pay scale was available to the Section Officers of the Central Secretariat as would be evident from para No. 6.27 of the recommendations of the Samta Samiti, 1989. The Section Officer of this Court are also getting the same pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-, which pay scale has been made admissible to the Section Officers of the U.P. Secretariat as well as Central Secretariat, New Delhi with effect from 1-1-1986 itself.

39. So far as the cases of Private Secretaries in the Central Secretariat, Allahabad High Court as well as Delhi High Court are concerned, the facts of their cases were based on different footing and the facts which related to the cases of Private Secretaries, have no applicability in any manner whatsoever to the facts of the present case of the petitioners, who are getting the same pay scale as is available to the Section Officers of U.P. Secretariat and the Central Secretariat.

40. The Private Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges of this Court claimed parity not only with the Private Secretaries of Delhi High Court, but also claimed parity with the Private Secretaries attached to the Secretaries to the Government of India. The judgment and order dated 21-12-93 passed in writ petition No. 1408 of 1983, filed by the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants Brotherhood, was based on parity with the Private Secretaries of the Hon'ble Judges of the Delhi High Court and also Private Secretaries attached to the Secretaries to the Government of India.

41. In the instant case the petitioners claimed parity with the Superintendent of Delhi High Court, when the fact remains that the posts of Section Officers are and were very well in existence in the Central Secretariat, then the petitioners cannot claim parity with the Superintendent of the Delhi High Court.

42. It has also been urged by the learned Advocate General that the employees of the Delhi High Court namely Court Masters, Superintendents and Private Secretaries, in accordance with the Rules gramed by the Delhi High Court under Article 229(2), have been enjoying the benefits of common seniority and the said posts of Court Masters, Superintendents and Private Secretaries have been held under the said Rules as equivalent or equated posts and further these posts have been held to be interchangeable under the said Rules. But on perusal of the provisions of 1976 service Rules, annexed by the petitioners themselves, would clearly show that there is no provision any common seniority list from amongst the Private Secretaries, Bench Secretaries and Section Officers of this Court. These posts have nowhere been categorised and held as equivalent, equated or having equal status posts and the said posts under the 1976 Rules of this Court have not been held as interchangeable posts has been done in the Rules applicable to the employees/officers of Delhi High Court.

43. It was also pointed out by the learned Advocate General that in the Delhi High Court the source of recruitment to the posts of Superintendent is from two sources. 25% of the vacant posts are to be filled up by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit for joint seniority list of Assistant, Senior Translators, Proof Reader and Care Taker. 75% of the vacant posts are to be filled up by selection on merit on the basis of written test and interview from the categories of Senior Assistants, Assistants Senior Translators, Proof Readers, Junior Readers, Personal Assistant to Registrar, Senior Stenographers and Care Taker. Whereas in the Allahabad High Court only permanent Upper Division Assistants can be promoted as Section Officers vis-a-vis cent per cent. The Personal Assistants have their separate seniority list and they are promoted on the posts of Private Secretaries. Superintendent of Delhi High Court are getting the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 (10,000-15,200 revised) on the basis of common seniority list of Private Secretaries, Court Masters and Superintendents.

44. It was stressed by the learned Advocate General that since the Section Officers of Allahabad High Court have parity with the Section Officers of U.P. Secretariat or in any view of the matter with the Section Officers of the Central Secretariat, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim parity with the Superintendent of the Delhi High Court.

45. It was urged that no recommendation ever has been received by the State Government in respect of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions contained in Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India, hence there was no occasion for the Governor to accord the financial approval.

46. In support of his contention, learned Advocate General relied upon the observation of Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. P.D. Attri and Ors. : [1999]1SCR587 . The brief fact of the case in State of H.P. v. P.D. Attri and Ors., was that after the bifurcation of the State of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory of H.P. which later on was granted the status of full State, the H.P. had jointly been following the service condition as laid down by the State of Punjab from time to time for its employees. Similar position prevailed for the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and High Court of H.P. when Senior Translators and Junior Translators of Punjab and Haryana High Court were redesignated respectively with the posts of Superintendents Grade-II and Assistants in Punjab Civil Secretariat, the same change was made in Himachal Pradesh High Court also. This change was initially given in Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as in Himachal Pradesh High Court from 25.9.85.

47. However, benefit in Punjab and Haryana High Court had to be ante-dated 23-1-1975, as a result of decision of that Court (Judicial side) in Sunder Sham Kapoor case. This decision was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which held that benefit was admissible from 5-8-1980 only. The similarly dituated employees of Himachal Pradesh High Court initially claimed that benefit of higher pay scales in their case same also be ante-dated to 23-1-1975 but later on in view of development in Sundar Sham Kapoor case staked their claim before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that they may be given the benefit from 5-8-1980. When the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court made recommendations is to the Governor to redesignate/equate the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators in the Himachal Pradesh High Court to those in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, no decision was communicated, which led the respondents to approach the High Court on its judicial side.

48. Thereafter, the matter were up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in Para 5 of the report : 'The case of the respondents is not based on any constitutional or any other legal provisions, when they claim parity with the posts, similarly designated in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and their pay scales from the same date. They do not allege any violation of any constitutional provision or any other provision of law. They say, it is so because of 'accepted policy and common practice' which, according to them, are undisputed. We do not think, we can impart such vague principles while interpreting the provision of law. India is a Union of States. Each State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution. One State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the other State, or if it had adopted the same rules and regulations in the other State. The question then arises before us is, whether the State of Himachal Pradesh has to follow every change brought in the States of Punjab and Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to the employees in the States of Punjab and Haryana. The answer has to be in the negative. No argument is needed for that, as anyone having basic knowledge of the Constitution would not argue otherwise, True, the State as per 'policy and practice' has been adopting the same pay scales for the employees of the High Court, as sanctioned from time to time for the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and it may even now follow to grant pay scales, but is certainly not bound to follow. No law commands it to do so.'

49. It was further observed :

'In view of the above, it is not necessary to examine the qualifications for the appointment to the post of Senior Translators and Junior Translators that may exist between Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court and also as to the mode of their recruitment/placement in service. Moreover, any change in the pay scale following the Punjab and Haryana High Court can set in motion chain reaction for other employees which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation among various categories of employees. There cannot be any such law that the Himachal Pradesh High Court has to suo moto follow the same rules as applicable to the employees working in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.'

50. In the State of H.P. v. P.D. Attri (supra), although the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court but the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 7 and 9 of the report cannot be ignored or brushed aside which are quoted below :

'But then the fact remains that when the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh, High Court made recommendations to the Governor to redesignate/equate the post of Senior Translators and Junior Translators in the Himachal Pradesh High Court to those in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, no decision was communicated which led the respondents to approach the High Court on its judicial side. Recommendations of the Chief Justice of the High Court are to be given due difference and utmost consideration by the State Government. It certainly cannot sleep over the recommendations. Things have now certainly changed after the decision of this Court in Sunder Sham Kapoor case where Revisers in the Punjab and Haryana High Court are to be given benefit of pay scale of Superintendent (Grade II) from 5-8-1980 from which date the respondents are agreeable to the benefits granted to them. We may again observe and commend to the State Government, the following observations of this Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Assn. v. Union of India : (1989)IILLJ506SC .

'57. So far as the Supreme Court and the High Court are concerned, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned are empowered to frame rules subject to this that when the rules are gramed by the Chief Justice of India or by the Chief Justice of the High Court relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, the approval of the President of India or the Governor, as the case may be, is required. It is apparent that the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court have been placed at a higher level in regard to the framing of Rules containing the conditions of service. It is true that the President of India cannot be compelled to grant approval to the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances leave or pensions, but it is equally true that when such rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted. If the President of India is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts between the President of India and the Chief Justice of India.'

'8. This Court again in High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Paliwal. : (1999)ILLJ885SC restated what a State Government is expected to do when recommendations are made by the Chief Justice of the High Court in the following words :

'25. Since, under the Constitution, the Chief Justice has also the power to make rules regulating the conditions of service of the officers and servants of the High Court, it is obvious that he can also prescribe the scale of Salary payable for a particular post. This would also include the power to revise the scale of pay. Since, such a rule would involve finances, it has been provided in the Constitution, that it will require the approval of the Governor which, in other words, means the State Government. This Court in State of A.P. v. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthy, (1976) 2 SCC 883, had expressed the hope that 'one should accept in the fitness of things and in view of the spirit of Article 229 that the approval ordinarily and generally, would be accorded. This was reiterated by this Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Assn. v. Union of India : (1989)IILLJ506SC . We again reiterate the hope and feel that once the Chief Justice, in the interest of High Court administration, has taken a progressive step specially to ameliorate the service conditions of the officers and staff working under him, the State Government would hardly raise any objection to the sanction of creation of posts or fixation for revision of scale of pay if the scale of pay of the equivalent post in the Government has been revised.'

51. The learned Advocate General also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Rajasthan Judicial Services Officers Association and Ors. : [1999]3SCR798 , the matter pertained to the dress allowance of the Judicial Officers. The question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was whether the High Court can issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to provide dress allowance for Judicial Officers. It was held that there was no occasion for the High Court to issue mandamus in the manner which had done. Although, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, but as the State Government having decided to pay Rs. 3000/- once in three years, a direction was issued to pay the said allowances.

52. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India and Anr. : (1993)ILLJ1094SC . In the aforesaid case the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association and Supreme Court Class IV Employees Welfare Association, staked a claim that the staff of the Supreme Court of India be placed in higher scale of pay, than what were admissible to the corresponding staff working in the Delhi High Court. A direction was sought that as an interim measure the staff working in the Registry of Hon'ble the Supreme Court be paid the same scales as were being paid to the holders of corresponding posts working in the Registry of the Delhi High Court. On 25-7-1986 a interim order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect, that pending final disposal of the writ petition of officers and staff of the Supreme Court Registry they might be paid the same pay scales and allowances which were being enjoyed by the Officers and the members of the staff of the High Court of Delhi, belonging to the same category, with effect from the date from which such scales of pay have been allowed to the officers and the members of the staff of the High Court of Delhi. By a later order dated 15-1-1987 clarification was made in respect of different posts in the Supreme Court Registry which will be treated as equivalent to the different posts in the Delhi High Court, and a direction was given that the benefit of the aforesaid order dated 25-7-1986 will be given to them.

53. Certain recommendations were made by a Committee of Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court which was accepted by the Chief Justice of India which were forwarded to the President for his approval. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it was observed in Para 13 of the report.

54. The aforesaid recommendations of the Committee of the Judges of this Court which has been accepted by the then Chief Justice of India and which are to be forwarded to the President for his approval cannot be held, for the present, to be a rule within the meaning of Article 146 of the Constitution. But those recommendations can certainly from the basis for issuing interim direction regarding payment of the revised scale to the holders of different categories of posts within the Registry of this Court. It is an admitted position that the question regarding revision of scale of pay of different categories of employees of this Court with effect from 1-1-1986 is pending consideration for more than seven years. During the hearing of the applications for interim directions we were informed that holders of the corresponding posts of the High Court of Delhi have been getting the revised scale of pay pursuance to the orders aforesaid dated 4.11.1991 and 14-11-1991. There does not appear to be any justification that when the holders of corresponding posts in the High Court of Delhi are getting the scales of pay pursuant to the orders aforesaid, how those scales could be denied to holders of the corresponding posts of the Apex Court in the country, till the rules come in force. It has been mentioned in the report submitted by the Committee of Judges that in view of the constraints of the interim orders passed by this Court, from time to time the committee has recommended that the Chief Justice of India can make rules under Article 146 of the Constitution, if the limitations of the interim orders are lifted by the Court on the judicial side. We consider the oppositeness of such recommendation made by the committee. We, therefore, make it clear that the Chief Justice of India is free to make Rules in exercise of powers under Article 146 of the Constitution of India without any constraint and irrespective of any interim orders passed on 25-7-1986, 14-8-1986, 14-11-1986 and 15-1-1987. With the above observations we dispose of all the interlocutory applications as mentioned above.

55. Reliance was also placed by the learned Advocate General on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal, : (1999)ILLJ885SC . In nut shell the respondent No. 2 on the post of Deputy Registrar which was decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and argument was raised before that Bench by respondent No. 2 that all the posts in the Establishment of the High Court would be manned by the officers belonging to that establishment certain posts of Deputy Registrar and all higher posts were being filled up by bringing officers of R.J.S. or R.H.J.S. while many of the subordinate Courts lay vacant, causing not only frustration to the High Court staff but also difficulty to the litigants. The Judges of the Division Bench although found that point was not necessary for deciding the writ petition, proceeded to issue a direction to the Registrar to prepare a record in that respect and to put up he same before the Full Court through the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration and decision as to whether the officers belonging to judicial service should be spared to man such posts in the High Court specially when the Courts in various districts of the State remained vacant.

56. After reviewing the law under various States including the Charter issued in 1774, Clause 10 of High Court Act, 1861. Section 9 of the Act allowing the High Court's appeal against the said direction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held :

'Clause 4 and 3 of the Letter Patent of the Calcutta High Court as amended in 191.9 given the power of appointment of the staff and the removal of the staff to the Chief Justice. The power was to be exercised subject to such rules and restrictions as may be made by the Governor General-in-Council. This position was continued by Section 106 of the Government of India Act, 1915 and was not altered by the Government of India Act. In view of Section 242(2) of the 1935 Act, the Chief Justice continued to be the highest authority so far as High Court staff is concerned.'

'When the Constitution came into existence, the powers and status of the Chief Justice, as available under both the Acts, namely, Government of India Acts, 1915 and 1935, were maintained. Article 229 of the Constitution of India made the Chief Justice of the High Court the Supreme Authority in the matter of appointment of the officers and servants. This Article also confers power of the Chief Justice for regulating the condition of the service of the officers and servants of the High Court subject to the condition specified therein. Under Article 229, the power of appointment can also be exercised by such other Judge or Officer of the Court as may be directed by the Chief Justice. So also the rule making power can be exercised by some other Judges or Officer of the Court provided he is authorised in that behalf by the Chief Justice.'

57. The power available to the Chief Justice of the High Court, under Article 229 is akin to the power of the Chief Justice of India under Article 146 of the Constitution.

58. Taking a cue from the proviso to Clause 2 of Article 229 of the Constitution of India, it was contended that until the unless a rule is made which is approved by the Governor of the State. Neither the Chief Justice of the High Court nor the High Court on judicial side can issue a writ of mandamus in a matter which relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions to the officers and servants of the High Court. It was urged that if the recommendations of the Chief Justice forwarded to the Governor for his approval cannot be said to be a rule within Article 229 of the Constitution as held in the case of Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India and Anr. : (1993)ILLJ1094SC .

59. The learned Advocate General failed to notice the later part of the observation in the same :

'That there did not appear any jurisdiction that when holder of the corresponding post in the High Court of Delhi are getting the scale of pay pursuant to the order of the aforesaid, how this scale could be denied to the holder of the corresponding post of the Apex Court in the country till rule come into force.'

60. In Para 15 of the report we find that certain class of employees of Punjab and Haryana High Court were accorded parity with the staff of the Delhi High Court.

61. The petitioners of the instant writ petition claim parity with the scale of pay which is being given to the Superintendents of the Delhi High Court. According to the petitioners the posts of Section Officers, Permanent Bench Secretaries Grade II and Permanent Private Secretaries including the Assistant Principal, Private Secretary in the High Court at Allahabad were earlier treated at par with each other any they were getting the same pay scale with identical status before 21-12-1993. It was submitted that they discharge more or less similar functions. The next promotional post of these cadres is Assistant Registrar in view of the notification dated 29-1-1997 issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, but it is pertinent to mention here that the quota of promotion from amongst the Section Officer of General Office is 70%.

62. It appears that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court on the representation being made to him on March 15, 1994, filed by the petitioners for up granting the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500/- with effect from 1-1-86 in view of the various decisions of this Court as well as of the Delhi High Court, directed that the Charter of demand of the Section Officers Brotherhood be forwarded to the State Government with a recommendation to consider the same on the ground of parity. In compliance of the order passed by the Chief Justice, a D.O. letter No. 1886 of 1994 dated 3-6-1994 was sent to the Judicial Secretary, Government of U.P., wherein it was mentioned that the Private Secretaries attached to the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court have been given the scale of Rs. 3000-4500/- on the basis of the judgment dated 21-12-1993, delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 1408 of 1993 (Private Secretaries and Personal Assistant Brotherhood v. State of U.P. and Ors.).

63. It was also indicated in the said letter that the Private Secretaries and Section Officers were in the same scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-. They were kept together only for the reason that the duties and responsibilities attaches to both the categories of the post was equal. The higher grade of Rs. 3000-4500/- has been made admissible to the Private Secretaries of the Court on the basis of the fact that similar scale of pay is admissible to their counter parts in the Government of India as well as in the Delhi High Court (as held by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in writ Petition No. 2756 of 1991 on 14-1-1991). There could, therefore, be no reason to deny the scale of pay of Rs. 3000-4500/- to the Section Officer of this Court.

64. It was further indicated in the letter of the High Court sent to the Law Secretary that the Section Officers of the Court, who have always been at par with the Private Secretaries in the matter of pay and allowances, have to discharge more difficult and respondents duties in the administration of justice in the State both on judicial side as well as on the administrative side of the Court than the duties performed by the Private Secretaries. Therefore, there exists no reason or justification to treat the Section Officers differently. The letter asked the State Government that the demand of the Section Officers for placing them in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500/- may as considered favourably in the light of the aforesaid observations and orders of the Government in the matter may be obtained and communicated to the Court at an early date.

65. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid D.O. letter was sent to the State Government in the month of June, 1994. As the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court being the highest judicial authority, communicated through his Officer, the letter of the Additional Registrar was issued under the authority of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court.

66. It is pertinent to mention here that when Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court with a view to ameliorate the service conditions of the Section Officers, recommended the case of the petitioners to the State Government. Instead of treating the recommendation of the Chief Justice with respect, the State Government slept over the matter and did not even care to send a letter or exchange thought with Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in spite of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court that once the Chief Justice in the interest of the High Court administration has taken a step to improve the service conditions of the officers and staff, the State Government would hardly raise any objection to fixation of salary payable for the post or their recommendations or revision of the pay scale, if the scale of pay of the equivalent post in the Government has been revised. This action on the part of the State Government cannot be said to be proper as the recommendation of the Chief Justice was to be looked upon with a respect. If it is assumed that there existed strong reason not to grant the parity of the scale, at least the Hon'ble the Chief Justice should have been informed, so there could be an exchange of thought between the Governor of the State/State Government and the Chief Justice.

67. After the decision of this Court in Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants Brotherhood (supra), which was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the special leave petition, preferred by the State Government, on merit, the argument of the learned Advocate General that in absence of a rule and approval of the Governor, no recommendation can be made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in the matters of salaries, allowances etc. and this Court cannot issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, in devoid of merit.

68. The observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. P.D. Attri and Ors. (supra), cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case as the employees in Himachal Pradesh High Court initially claimed the benefit of higher pay scale with effect from 23-1-1975, but after the decision in Sunder Sham Kapoor's case, submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that they would be satisfied if benefit was given to them with effect from 5-8-1998. In the peculiar facts of the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that one state is not bound to follow the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employees of the other State.

69. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Judicial Services Officers Association and Ors. (supra), pertained to the dress and kit allowances of the judicial officers. In view of the fact that the State Government itself by a notification provided dress allowance of Rs. 1500 to 3000 in a block of three years to the members of the Rajasthan Judicial Service and Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service with effect from 1-1-1993. The Honb'le Supreme Court was of the view that looking into the parameter laid down by the Constitution and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the quantum of the dress allowance or kit maintenance allowance was not required to be determined by the High Court in the manner in which it was done.

70. Similarly, in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India and Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the facts that revision of pay scales of Class IV employees of the Supreme Court was pending since 1-1-1986 and the corresponding posts of High Court at Delhi have already been getting revised pay scales, adopting the recommendation of the Committee of Judges, the pay scale was revised and brought at par with the pay scales of the Delhi High Court. The decision of this case does not in any manner help the case of the State Government in the instant writ petition, rather it strengthens the case of the petitioners.

71. While interpreting the second proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 40 of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976, which were made by the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of the power conferred by Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India.

72. Hon'ble S.P. Bharucha, J. speaking in State of U.P. v. C.L. Agarwal : (1997)IILLJ770SC , observed that the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 40 is of importance for more reasons. It states that the powers which are exercisable by the Governor under the rules and guidance of the Government in respect of the matter with regard to the conditions of service, not provided for by the 1977 Rules, shall be exercised by the Hon'ble Chief Justice or by such officers as he may direct. In so far as the Officers and servants are concerned though the Chief Justice or his delegate exercises the power exercisable by the Governor under such Rules and orders of the Government, but in so tar as the Officers and servants of the High Court are concerned, it is only the Chief Justice, who exercises the powers conferred upon the Governor under such Rules and orders of the Government. No further approval of the Governor is required. In the said case it was held that the orders of the Chief Justice granting to premature increment did not, therefore, require the approval of the Governor under the aforesaid proviso.

73. After the decision of Delhi High Court in A.K. Gulati v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), parity of pay scale between the Private Secretaries of the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the Government of India and Chief Secretary of Delhi Administration was granted. Similarly, the Superintendents of the Delhi High Court were given parity with the Private Secretaries and Court Masters of Delhi High Court and a direction was issued to give the Superintendents the same scale of pay which was being given to the Private Secretaries and Court Masters of the Delhi High Court, and judgment also attained the finality after the dismissal of the special leave petition.

74. In Hari Lal Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), the Court Masters and Superintendents of the Delhi High Court also raised a similar plea which was accepted by the Delhi High Court.

75. In Ramji Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., the Bench Secretary Grade I were given the same pay scale with the Private Secretaries of the Delhi High Court and with the corresponding employees of the Delhi High Court.

76. Hence, the Section Officer of this Court cannot be treated differently and their case ought to have been considered by the State Government for giving the same scale of pay which their counter parts namely, the Superintendents, Court Masters have been given in the Delhi High Court.

77. As we have pointed out earlier the posts of Private Secretaries, Bench Secretaries Grade I and Section Officers in the High Court of Allahabad were always treated at par with each other and they were getting the same pay scale with identical status. Similarly, the post of Court Master, Superintendent and Private Secretaries at Delhi High Court are equally status posts. The Assistant Registrar which is a promotional post may be filled up in the High Court from either of the three posts who were getting similar pay scale up to 21-12-98. But in Delhi High Court the posts are interchangeable and the common seniority list of Court Master, Superintendent and Private Secretaries is maintained.

78. In the case of P.N. Chopra etc. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1981(2) Delhi 102, the Delhi High Court directed that the Private Secretaries and the Court Master should get the same pay scale as that of Private Secretaries to the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration vis-a-vis the scale of Rs. 775-1200/-. Thereafter. Sangram Singh who was a Superintendent, claimed that he should be paid the same scale of pay as was being paid to the Private Secretaries and Court Masters.

79. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld this contention solely ground that according to the Rules these were equal status posts and the Superintendent should not be treated differently than Private Secretaries and Court Masters and a direction was issued to the respondents to give the Superintendents the scale of Rs. 775-1200/-.

80. A special appeal filed against the decision of the Delhi High Court in Sangram Singh's case was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being special leave petition No. 8934 of 1982 dated 3-12-1982.

81. In Hari Lal Sharma and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., this aspect of the matter was considered, therein it was indicated that the three categories of the employees may not perform similar or identical duties but they are not different from each other. According to the Rule they are equal status posts and hence, the Court Master and the Superintendent of the Delhi High Court, in all fairness should get the same scale of pay specially when all the three categories of the posts are feeder posts to the next higher grade of Assistant Registrar.

82. The State Government failed to delve into the matter, by examining itself, the nature of work, workload and area of functioning of the Section Officers of this Court, which is more onerous, difficult and responsible in comparison to the duties of the Superintendent of the Delhi High Court inasmuch as the High Court at Allahabad is much larger in comparison to Delhi High Court.

83. The staff of this High Court namely, Private Secretaries, Personal Assistants, Bench Secretaries Grade I and Class IV employees were given the corresponding scale of pay with their counter parts in the Delhi High Court with effect from 1-1-1986, the petitioners of this writ petition want the implementation of similar orders. Their representation was recommended by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the year 1994, but the State Government failed in its statutory duty and obligation within the period of five years to take a positive decision, resulting into grave injustice to the petitioners. Hence, a writ of mandamus can be issued particularly when the similar writs in the nature of mandamus were issued by this Court in the case of Private Secretaries and Personal Assistances, Bench Secretaries Grade I and Class IV employees of the High Court and in view of the aforesaid directions of the Court the aforesaid categories of the employees were given the corresponding scale of pay which is being given to the staff of the Delhi High Court.

84. In view of what has been indicated in the foregoing paragraphs the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to fix the salary of the Section Officers of the Allahabad High Court, in the scale of Superintendent of Delhi High Court, and pay to the Section Officers of the Allahabad High Court, the same scale of pay, which the Superintendent of Delhi High Court have been getting with effect from 3rd June, 1994 when the recommendation of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court, through the Registry was communicated to the State Government.

85. However, it is provided that the scale of pay of the Section Officers along with one half of the arrears (being the difference in the scale of Section Officers of Allahabad High Court and Superintendent of Delhi High Court, shall be paid on 1st January, 2000, but the remaining half of such arrears shall be deposited in the Provident Fund Account of the Section Officers on 1st July, 2000.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //