1999 Supreme(SC) 685

1999(6) Supreme 23
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers Association & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1997
Decided on 24-5-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Aruneshwar Gupta, Srilok Nath Rath, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Sushil K. Jain and A.P. Dhamija, Advocates.

Important Point
Rajasthan High Court’s writ of mandamus of directing the State Govern­ment to pay Rs. 5,500 as initial dress allowance and Rs. 300 as kit maintenance allowance to judicial officers was held to be unsustain­able, as it is for the State to determine appropriate Service Condi­tions by virtue of Article 309 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Arti­cles 235 and 309 - Recruitment and conditions of service of Judicial Officers - Quantum of allowance-Article 309 puts the responsibility of deciding appropriate service conditions on the States-High Courts’ jurisdiction to give direction to State Government as regards quantum of allowance-Scope of power.

       (ii) Service Law-Judicial Ser­vice-Rajasthan Judicial Service-Dress allowance and kit maintenance allowance-Judicial Officers claiming Rs. 10,665 towards initial dress allowance and Rs. 400 p.m. as kit maintenance allowance-State granting Rs. 1500 once in three years towards dress allowance-Writ petition claiming allowance as insuffi­cient-Direction by High Court to grant initial lump sum of Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 300 p.m.-Not sustainable -Article 309 of Constitu­tion puts responsibility of deciding appropriate service conditions on State-National Judi­cial Pay Commission constituted, inter alia, to consider issue of pay structure etc.-Piecemeal deter­mination of individual allowances which go to form total pay packet of judicial officer by different High Courts by issuing writs of mandamus not permissible-State of Rajasthan, however, was directed to pay uniform allowance of Rs. 3000/- in a block of three years as agreed by the Government.

       Held : Under Article 235 of the Constitution the High Court is invested with control over District Courts and courts subordinate to it includ­ing the posting and promotion of and the grant of leave to all Judi­cial Officers of the State. Under Article 309, however, recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving, inter alia, as Judicial Officers of the State is to be controlled by appropriate legislation; and until such legislation, the Governor of the State is empowered to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of Judicial Officers. In the present case, in exercise of its powers under Article 309 the State Government has fixed the salary and allow­ances of different categories of Judicial Officers in the State of Rajasthan. A dress allowance of Rs. 1500/- every three years is one such allowance fixed by the State of Rajasthan. (Para 3)

       We are informed that the first National Judicial Pay Commission which has been constituted has, as one of its terms of reference, the following:

       “(b) To examine the present structure of emoluments and conditions of service of Judicial Officers in the State and Union Territories taking into account the total packet of benefits available to them and make suitable recom­mendations having regard, among other relevant factors, to the existing relativities in the pay structure between the officers belonging to the Subordinate Judicial Service vis-a-vis other civil servants.”

       In our view, any piecemeal deter­mination of individual allowances which go to form the total pay packet of a judicial officer, by different High Courts by issuing writs of mandamus would go counter to the very purpose of setting up a National Judicial Pay Commission. It would also not be appropriate for any High Court to give directions in its own State regarding a particular allowance without examining the relative conditions of Judicial Officers and the total pay packets which are received by Judicial Officers in other States. (Paras 6 & 7)

       Constitutional discipline also, requires that the constitutional provisions must be followed by the High Courts. Article 309 puts the responsibility of deciding appropriate service conditions on the State. The concerned High Courts can play an effective administrative role in fixation of appropriate service conditions of judicial offi­cers when backed by recommendations of an expert Pay Com­mission in which the judiciary has an important say. In the present case, the appellant-State of Rajasthan has pointed out that there is no uniform­ity regarding the granting of dress allowance and on kit maintenance allowance admissible to the Judicial Officers in different States. For example, in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Maha­rashtra, Sikkim, Kerala, Karnataka and Jammu & Kashmir no such allowances are being paid at all. In the States of Punjab and Haryana also no such allowances are being paid although some Judicial Officers have filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming such allowances. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, Judicial Officers who are working in the courts are allowed Rs. 300/- per month towards purchase of law books and mainte­nance of dress. In the State of Orissa, Rs. 1500/- as a lump sum amount is given to each Judicial Officer in the rank of Munsiff, SDJM and Sub-Judge once in a block of three years. While in West Bengal Rs. 500/- are allowed to the Judicial Officers once in two years. No kit maintenance allowance is being paid to them. In this context, there­fore, there was no occasion for the High Court to issue a writ of manda­mus in the manner in which it has done. (Para 8)

       Whether a separate allowance for dress should or should not be granted also depends upon the total pay packet of the officer, his rank and status in society and whether in the context of his overall emoluments, it is necessary to give him a separate allowance. Employ­ees in Class IV are normally given these allowances because their pay packets are perceived as at the lowest levels. One cannot ipso facto assume that the same logic will apply to Judicial Officers until we have an overall examination of their service conditions and a report from the National Judicial Pay Commission. In the judgments which were cited, this Court felt compelled to intervene only to ensure that proper functioning of the judicial officers was not affected. Unless the concerned service condition can be perceived as seriously affect­ing proper discharge of judicial duties, the High Court should not issue a mandamus directing the State to pay certain amounts to the judicial officers. (Para 9)

       Held further : The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is, however, pointed out by the appellants that in November, 1998, the State Government has decided to increase the uniform allowance from the existing rate of Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3000/- in a block of three years. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan has also stated before us that the State will pay the in­creased allowance as specified in its letter of 20.11.1998 addressed to the Advocate-on-Record by the Principal Secretary to the Government and issued by the Finance Department. The appellants are directed to pay the uniform allowance of Rs. 3000/- in a block of three years accordingly. (Para 11)