IMPORTANT POINT
The Chief Justice of a High Court exercises constitutional power in terms of Article 229 of the Constitution of India and laying down the conditions of service applicable in the case of staff and officers of a High Court is within the exclusive domain of the Chief Justice but in case of any financial implication involved therein the approval of the State Governor is imperative.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Constitution of India-Article 229-Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976-Rules 36 and 40-Claim of higher scale of pay-Section Officers, Private Secretaries, Bench Secretaries and Assistant Registrars working in High Court at Allahabad claiming scales of pay as paid to their counterparts of Delhi High Court-Private Secretaries/PAs, Bench Secretaries claims already allowed by the Supreme Court-These categories of employees thereafter had been getting pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 w.e.f. 1.1.1986-High Court issued a writ commanding appellant to fix salary of Section Officers of Allahabad High Court in same scale of pay as payable to Superintendent of Delhi High Court-Whether impugned judgments can be sustained-(No).
       Held : There cannot be any doubt or dispute whatsoever that determination of different scales of pay for different categories of employees would ordinarily fall within the realm of an expert body like the Pay Commission or Pay Committee. The Chief Justice of a High Court exercises constitutional power in terms of Article 229 of the Constitution of India. (Para 16)
       A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would clearly go to show that laying down the conditions of service applicable in the case of staff and officers of a High Court is within the exclusive domain of the Chief Justice but in case of any financial implication involving therein the approval of the State Governor is imperative. (Para 18)
       In the instant case, the Chief Justice did not frame any rules except in the case of Private Secretaries. Such rules have only been framed on or about 15th November, 2001. Thus, at the relevant time i.e. when the writ petition was filed and the impugned judgment was passed, there existed no such rule. The jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise its power of judicial review is required to be examined in the aforementioned situation. (Paras 21 and 22)
       We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. However, this order shall be subject to the rules framed by the Chief Justice in the case of the Private Secretaries of the High Court. It will, however be open to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to frame appropriate rules as has been done in the case of the Private Secretaries or constitute an appropriate committee for the said purpose. We have no doubt in our mind that if such committee is constituted and any recommendation is made for enhancement of the scale of pay for the concerned officers by the Chief Justice, the same would be considered by the State Government in its proper perspective and in the light of the observations made hereinbefore expeditiously. (Para 31)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-These appeals arising out of the judgments and orders dated 22.11.1999, 16.11.2000 (as corrected on 11.12.2000), 20.5.2003 and 29.7.1998 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 18979 of 1998, 970 of 2000, 30234 of 2001 and 17885 of 1996 respectively involving similar questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

FACTS :

2. The Respondents herein are Section Officers, Private Secretaries, Bench Secretaries and Assistant Registrars working in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. They filed several writ petitions praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus inter alia directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to fix higher scale of pay. Such scales of pay were claimed purported to be on the basis of scales of pay paid to their counterparts i.e. Section Officers, Private Secretaries, Bench Secretaries or Assistant Registrars of Delhi High Court. The Private Secretaries PAs, Bench Secretaries filed writ petitions bearing No. WP No. 1408/93 and WP No. 26550/95 respectively before the Allahabad High Court which were allowed by judgments and orders dated 21.12.1993 and 1.11.1996. The Special Leave Petitions filed against the said judgments and orders were said to have been dismissed by orders dated 26.3.1996 and 7.7.1997. Both the aforementioned categories of employees thereafter had been getting the pay-scale of Rs. 3000-4500 with effect from 1.1.1986.

3. It is not in dispute that the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad in exercise of his power conferred upon him by Article 229 of the Constitution of India made rules known as Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service & Conduct) Rules, 1976. The Section Officers, Bench Secretaries Grade I and Private Secretaries are holders of Class II posts referable to Rule 16 of the said Rules. The posts of Deputy Registrar is a Class I post and allegedly Class II officers are entitled to be considered for promotion to Class I post.

4. It is not in dispute that Rule 36 of the Rules provides that the scales of pay admissible to various categories of posts in the establishment of the High Court are to be determined by the Chief Justice from time to time with the approval of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Rule 40 while conferring power of superintendence and control on the Chief Justice provides that in financial matters, the orders containing modifications or variations relating to the salary etc. shall be made by the Chief Justice with the approval of the Governor. However, sub-rule (3) of Rule 40 postulates that in case of any doubt as regards equivalence of a post of an officer in the High Court vis-a-vis posts in the State Government, the matter should be decided by the Chief Justice.

WRIT PROCEEDINGS :

Contention of the Writ Petitioners/Respondents :

5. The contention of the Respondents in the said writ petition appears to be that the State of Uttar Pradesh as a matter of policy adopted in the year 1988 decided to grant central pay scales to the employees of the High Court and, therefore, the Chief Justice has the final say as regard equivalence of the employees of the High Court vis-a-vis the employees of the Central Government and/or Delhi High Court for the purpose of determination of consequent scale of pay applicable thereto.

6. The claim for higher scales of pay for Class II and Class I officers indisputably was made in view of the decisions of Delhi High Court in A.K. Gulati and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1991 (44) DLT 590] and Shri Madan Lal Vs. Registrar Delhi High Court and Others [1992 (46) DLT 133].

7. It was further contended that although the posts of Private Secretaries, Court Masters and the Superintendents of Delhi High Court were found to be of same status and the employees were inter-transferable, such slight difference in the recruitment process of Allahabad High Court would be of no relevance as all

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1192

Cases Referred (8)