IMPORTANT POINT
The post of Senior Subordinate Judge classified under the Delhi Judicial Service cannot be equated to the post of District Judge or Additional District Judge merely because by delegation for administrative convenience, certain limited appellate powers are delegated to the Senior Sub-Judge.

JUDGMENT

K. Venkataswami, J.-Aggrieved by the judgment of Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 433/90 dated 2.4.1992, this appeal by special leave has been preferred.

2. The appellant presently a member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service who presented his case both before the High Court and this Court in person, moved the High Court by filing the said Writ Petition seeking two reliefs (a) that the post of Senior Subordinate Judge which was classified under the Delhi Judicial Service should have been upgraded when the posts of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates had been upgraded from Delhi Judicial Service to Delhi Higher Judicial Service in the year 1985 and (b) that the petitioner had, prior to his promotion been discharging the functions of a Senior Subordinate Judge and, therefore, during that time when he was discharging the said functions, he was entitled to pay in the scale of pay applicable to Additional District Judge.

3. It appears from the judgment under appeal that the appellant placed reliance on Section 39(3) of Punjab Courts Act which enabled him as a Senior Sub-Judge to hear appeals under certain circumstances and contended that he must be deemed to be discharging the functions of a District Judge at least for the purpose of payment of salary. He also placed reliance on Article 236(a) of the Constitution of India which defines the expression District Judge . It has also been contended before the High Court that in the face of upgrading the post of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the denial of same privilege to the post of Senior Subordinate Judge was arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

4. The High Court in its considered and reasoned judgment found that the post of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate were rightly upgraded and in any event by holding that the said posts of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates were wrongly upgraded, the appellant was not going to get any relief on that account. However, the High Court made it clear that they have not examined the correctness of the allegations of the petitioner before it (appellants herein) that the posts of Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates have been wrongly upgraded.

5. On the contention based on Section 39(3) of Punjab Courts Act, the High Court held as follows:-

"The petitioner is also claiming that he should be paid the same salary as is being paid to the Addl. District Judge for the period during which he worked as a Senior Subordinate Judge. This contention is based on the ground that under Section 39(3) of the Punjab Court Act, the High Court may, by notification, direct that appeals lying to the District Court from all or any of the decrees or orders may be preferred to such Subordinate Judges as may be mentioned in the notification to be issued by the High Court. Under this provision when a Notification is issued and the appeals are, thereupon preferred, then, Section 39(3) inter alia, provides that "the Court of such other Subordinate Judge shall be deemed to be a District Court for the purposes of all appeals so preferred".

The petitioner also relies on the provisions of F.R. 49 and submits that as the petitioner was discharging the duties and functions which ordinarily meant to be discharged by the District Judge, therefore, he was entitled to get the same salary as that of the Addl. District Judge.

We find no merit in this contention. Section 39(3) enabled the High Court to delegate powers of the District Court in hearing the appeals to any Subordinate Judge. In pursuance thereof the High Court issued a Notification on 16th May, 1993 in which it was, inter alia, provided that appeals lying to the District Court from decrees or orders passed by any Subordinate Court, (a) in a small cause case of a value not exceeding Rs. 500/- and (b) in an unclassed suit of a value not exceeding Rs. 100/- shall be preferred t