SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 552

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.
S.B. Mathur and others, Petitioners
Versus
Honble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 263 of 1979, D/- 31-8-1988.

Advocates:
A.K.GANGULY, A.K.SRIVASTAVA, A.MARIAPUTHAM, A.MINOCHA, A.Subhashini, ARUNA MATHUR, B.S.BALI, C.M.NAYAR, C.V.SUBBA RAO, D.D.THAKUR, G.S.VASHISHT, Kuldip Singh, T.R.ARTI, VINA MINOCHA

Headnote:

Delhi High Court Act, 1966 – Section 7 – Petition owes its origin to a dispute between different groups of employees of the Delhi High Court, claiming better rights of promotion for themselves, a type of dispute too common in services these days – Present Writ Petition has been filed by some Superintendents in the Delhi High Court objecting to their being treated on a par with the Private Secretaries to learned Judges and Court Masters and being included in a joint seniority list along with them, particularly as far as the promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Registrar is concerned – In order to appreciate the controversy before us, it is necessary to keep in mind the background in which the dispute has originated – Prior to the Constitution of the Delhi High Court, there was a Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court sitting at Delhi, Parliament established an independent High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi – By an order, effective, the Government of India created a staff for the said High Court –Held, Finally, it was pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioners that no uniform policy has been followed in the past regarding the limitation of zone of consideration as far as the selection to the posts of Assistant Registrars is concerned – This may be so – So long as the zone of consideration is limited by the competent authority-in a manner not inconsistent with the Rules or in a manner which is not arbitrary or capricious or mala fide, the validity of the decision to limit the zone of consideration cannot be successfully called in question or the ground that the manner in which the zone of consideration was limited was not uniform – Zone might have been limited on each occasion keeping in view the relevant circumstances including the number of posts vacant and on a basis having a nexus to the purpose of selection – Decision is at annexure 16 to the petition and it has been arrived at by a Committee of Administrative Judges comprising the then learned Chief Justice and four other learned Judges of the Delhi Court. Nothing has been shown to us to indicate that this decision of the Committee was in any manner capricious, arbitrary or mala fide – Only contention is, as we have already pointed out, that it was not open to the Committee to limit the zone of consideration at all and secondly, that this could not be done with reference to the joint seniority list both of which contentions we have already rejected earlier – Petition dismissed.

Judgment

KANIA, J. :- This Writ Petition owes its origin to a dispute between different groups of employees of the Delhi High Court, claiming better rights of promotion for themselves, a type of dispute too common in services these days. The present Writ Petition has been filed by some Superintendents in the Delhi High Court objecting to their being treated on a par with the Private Secretaries to learned Judges and Court Masters and being included in a joint seniority list along with them, particularly as far as the promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Registrar is concerned. In order to appreciate the controversy before us, it is necessary to keep in mind the background in which the dispute has originated.

2. Prior to the Constitution of the Delhi High Court in 1966, there was a Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court sitting at Delhi. By Act 26 of 1966, Parliament established an independent High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi. By an order dated October 31,1966, effective from October 31, 1966, the Government of India created a staff for the said High Court. The letter of the Government of India, which is Annexure A to the petition, shows that the President of India sanctioned the creation of certain posts for the Delhi High Court with effect from October 31, 1966 or from the date of setting up of the High Court, whichever was later, up to February 28, 1967. Amongst these posts, there was a post of an Assistant Registrar having a pay-scale of Rs. 500-30-800 plus (scales of pay and dearness allowance as admissible in Punjab). Among the other posts created were six posts of Private Secretaries to Honble Judges of the High Court in the pay-scale of Rs. 350-20-450-25-475, six posts of Readers and seven posts of Superintendents. The pay-scale of all these posts was the same, namely, Rs. 350-20-45-25-475. The Delhi High Court started functioning with effect from October, 31, 1966. The staff of the Punjab and Haryana High Court working in Delhi was, for the time being, treated as on deputation to the Delhi High Court till they were permanently absorbed in the Delhi High Court. From the time of its formation till 1971. the Delhi High court had no rules of its own regarding conditions of service or regarding, the salary or seniority in respect of its staff. Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (Act 26 of 1966), in brief, provided that, subject to the provisions of the said Act, the law in force immediately before the Appointed Day (31-10-1966) with respect to practice and procedure in the High Court of Punjab shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to the Delhi High Court and confer powers on the High Court of Delhi to make rules and orders with respect to its practice and procedure, such powers being the same as exerciseable by the High Court. of Punjab immediately before the Appointed Day. There was a proviso which was to the effect that any rules or orders which were in force immediately before the Appointed Day with respect to practice and procedure in the High Court of Punjab shall, until varied or revoked by rules or orders made by the High Court of Delhi, apply with the necessary modifications in relation to practice and procedure in the High Court of Delhi as if made by that High Court. The Delhi High Court started in 1966 with four Honble Judges including the Chief Justice and among its staff inter alia were four Superintendents, four Readers and three Private Secretaries against the sanctioned strength. Under the powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court framed the Delhi High Court Officers and Servants (Salaries, Leave, Allowances and Pension) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Salary Rules of 1970") and the Delhi High Court Staff (Seniority) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Seniority Rules of 1971"). Under the Salary Rules of 1970, the scale of pay for Superintendents, Readers and Private Secretaries was the























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top