Back
2002(1) Supreme 44
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik, R.P. Sethi and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
State of Maharashtra -Appellant
versus
Association of Court Stenos., P.A., P.S. & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4138 of 2000)
Decided on 9-1-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Advocate S.S. Shinde and S.V. Deshpande, Advocates.
For the Respondents : A.K. Sanghi and S.M. Jadhav, Advocates.
Held : It is no doubt true that the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is an equitable principle but it would not be appropriate for the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to examine the nature of work discharged by the staff attached to the Hon ble Judges of the Court and direct grant of any particular pay scale to such employees, as that would be a matter for the learned Chief Justice within his jurisdiction under Article 229(2) of the Constitution. (Para 5)
Held finally : We, therefore, set aside the impugned directions given by the Bombay High Court and observe that it would be a matter for the learned Chief Justice of the High Court to frame the appropriate rules in accordance with the constitutional provisions, which could be duly approved by the Governor, so that the grievances of the employees of the Court could be mitigated. This appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. (Paras 6 & 7)
JUDGMENT
Pattanaik, J.-Leave Granted.
2. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of Bombay High Court. The respondents are the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries attached to the Honb le Judges of Bombay High Court. They approached the High Court alleging that prior to 30th September, 1990, they were getting the same scale of pay, as was being paid to the Senior Personal Assistants, attached to the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary in the State of Maharashtra, but that parity has not been maintained after 1st October, 1990. Prayer was, therefore made by the Association that the Pay-scale should be fixed in the same scale, as the Senior Personal Assistant attached to the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary in the Govt. of Maharashtra, has been fixed by the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The High Court by the impugned judgment, came to the conclusion that there was a parity of pay between the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries to the Judges of the High Court with the Senior Personal Assistants to the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra and when the Fifth Central Pay Commission has revised the pay scale of the Senior Personal Assistants to the Chief Secretary and fixed it at the scale of Rs. 10,000 + 15,200, there is no reason why these respondents would not be entitled to the same. The Court, therefore, directed applying the principle of "Equal pay for equal work" that the writ petitioners are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. In case of Private Secretaries to the Senior Administrative Judges of the Court, the Court went further and directed special allowance should be granted, as may be deemed fit by the High Level Committee.
3. Mr. S.K. Dholakia, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the State, contended that the High Court was not justified in issuing the direction in the manner in which it has directed, which tantamounts to granting a specific scale by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. According to Mr. Dholakia, the Court might be justified in issuing the direction to the Chief Justice to perform his duty under Article 229(2) by framing a set of rules and fixing any pay scale therein. But by no stretch of imagination, the Court would be justified in granting a particular scale of pay to a particular class of employees in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. On facts also, Mr. Dholakia submits that it is not correct that uptill 1991, a parity was being maintained between the pay-scale of Private Secretary to the Judges and Senior Personal Assistant to the Chief Secretary inasmuch as in the High Court, while Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries were getting the pay-scale of 2375-3500, but the Private Secretary to the Judges were getting the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 and under the Government, the Senior P.A. to the Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary was getting the pay scale of Rs. 2375-3500. The same was the position until the Fifth Pay Commission considered the pay structure and made the necessary recommendation. Under the Fifth Pay Commission s Recommendation, the Private Secretary to the Judges were given the pay-scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200 which is in pari materia of the pay scale given to the Senior Personal Assistant to the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary, whereas the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries were given the pay scale of RS. 7450-11500, which is the pay scale given to the Selection Grade Stenographers in Mantralaya. According to Mr. Dholakia, it is, therefore, wholly unreasonable for the Court to direct that the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries in the High Court would be given the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200.
4. Mr. A.K. Sanghi, appearing for the respondents on the other hand, contended t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
