Important Points
1. When the Chief Justice of a State High Court makes recommendations regarding pay and service conditions of High Court employees for approval of the Governor, the recommendations are to be given due deference and utmost considerations by the State Government; the Government cannot sleep over the recommendations.
2. Merely because employees of one High Court are given some benefits, counter part employees of another High Court cannot, as of right, claim similar benefit.

Headnote:Service Law-Parity of pay scale and redesignation of posts-Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees-Senior Translators and Junior Translators - Demand for redesignation and equation with posts of Superintendents Grade II and Assistants in Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat w.e.f. 23.1.1975 -Claim based on relief granted to their counter parts at Punjab and Haryana High Court-Chief Justice recommending claim for approval of Governor-No approval received -Writ by employees-High Court granting relief-Whether correct-No-Claim on basis of relief granted to another High Court employees by that State not a ground-However, Recommendations of Chief Justice are to be given due deference and utmost consideration-Government cannot sleep over recommendations-State Governnment directed to consider recommendation of Chief Justice and take decision at an early date.
       Held : 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 import such vague principles while interpreting the provisions 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, it is not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other State. The question then arises before us is if 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 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” had 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. (Para 5)
       The State of Punjab was reorganised into States of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. Chandigarh, to begin with, was a Union Territory and was given the status of full Statehood in 1970. Since employees of the composite States of Punjab were taken in various Departments of the State of Himachal Pradesh in order to safeguard the seniority, pay-scales etc., the State of Himachal Pradesh followed the Punjab pattern of pay-scales. After attaining the status of full statehood, High Court of Himachal Pradesh formulated its own rules and regulations for its employees. It adopted the pattern of Punjab and Haryana High Court rules of their employees. When Punjab and Haryana High Court gave effect to certain portion of its Rules from 25.9.1985 by notification dated 23.1.1986 as a result of which redesignation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators were equated to the posts in Punjab Civil Secretariat, in the Himachal Pradesh High Court similar effect was given to in its rules for its employees. When the Punjab & Haryana High Court gave effect to those rules from 23.1.1975, the State Government did not agree to the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to follow the same suit. It is true that till now, Himachal Pradesh High Court has been following the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it may go on following those rules as may be amended by the Punjab and Haryana High Court from time to time, but certainly it is not bound to so follow. No law commands the State Government to follow the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the employees of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. That being the position, it is not necessary for us to examine different qualifications for appointment to the posts of 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 the service. Moreover, any change in the pay-scale following 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. Rules of each High Court have to be examined independently. There cannot be any such law that Himachal Pradesh High Court has to suo motu follow the same rules as applicable to the employees working in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. (Para 6)
       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 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. Recommendations of the Chief Justice of the High Court are to be given due deference and utmost consideration by the State Government. It certainly cannot sleep over the recommendations. Recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court should be considered by the State Government having regard to the observations made above and decision taken at an early date. (Paras 7 & 9)

Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-State of Himachal Pradesh in this appeal has challenged the judgment dated May 21, 1992 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) allowing the writ petition filed by certain categories of employees of the High Court seeking parity in pay scale from a particular date and redesignation of their posts with the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. High Court by the impugned judgment directed the State Government ‘to accord and convey the approval for the redesignation and equation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators with Revisers and Translators and equate them with the posts of Superintendents Grade-II and Assistants in the Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat from 23.1.1975 within two months from today and on receiving this approval, the second respondent will take the consequential steps within one month thereafter and grant such other and further reliefs to the petitioners that may flow out of the same”.

2. In coming to this decision, High Court was guided by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Sunder Sham Kapur & Ors. v. Hon’ble Chief Justice & Ors.1. On the basis of this judgment, Chief Justice Punjab and Haryana High Court had directed that the petitioners therein were entitled to the benefit of redesignation and equation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators from 23.1.1975. It was conceded before the High Court that since as per policy and practice, the State Government was adopting the pay-scales sanctioned for the officers and servants of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and accordingly the Chief Justice of the High Court had similarly recommended for the redesignation and equation of the posts in question from 23.1.1975. The aforesaid judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sunder Sham Kapur’s case (supra) has been reversed by this Court in Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh through its Registrar v. Sunder Sham Kapoor & Ors.2. This Court said the Revisors earlier designated as Translators would be entitled to revised pay-scale from 5.8.1980 as per the order dated 17.11.1987 and not from 23.1.1975. At the beginning of arguments, it was submitted before us by the respondents that they would be satisfied if this Court ordered that the respondents in the present case working in the High Court would be held entitled to similar payscale as provided to their counterparts in the Punjab and Haryana High Court w.e.f. 5.8.1980. We do not, however, think it is as simple as that.

3. The respondents before us are employees working in the establishment of the High Court as Senior Translators and Junior Translators. They are governed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and Servants (Salaries, Leave, Allowance and Pension) Rules, 1971 (for short, the Rules). Similar posts in the establishment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court are governed by Punjab and Haryana High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973. Relevant provisions of these Rules of Punjab and Haryana High Court were given effect in that High Court w.e.f. 25.9.1985 as per notification dated 23.1.1986 after receiving approval of the President of India under clause (2) of Article 229 read with Article 231 of the Constitution. As a result, posts of Senior Translators were redesignated as Revisors and equated with the posts of ‘Superintendent Grade-II in the Establishment of the Punjab Civil Secretariat. Similarly posts of Junior Translators were redesignated as Translators and equated with the posts of Assistant in the Establishment of the Punjab Civil Secretariat. Consequent upon the redesignation of these posts in Punjab and Haryana High Court, these posts were similarly redesignated/ equated in the High Court by the Chief Justice after obtaining approval from the Governor of the State. That was by notification dated 17.6.1987. Respondents were given their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 179

Cases Referred (3)