Judgment

DUTT, J.: - These Writ Petitions and Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed by the employees of the SC praying for their pay hike. Two events, which will be stated presently, seem to have inspired the employees of the SC to approach the Court by filing Writ Petitions. The first of the two events is the report of a Committee of Five Judges of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice P. N. Bliagwati (as he then was) as the Chairman, Mr. Justice V. D. Tulzapurkar, Mr. Justice D. A. Desai, Mr. Justice R. S. Pathak (as he then was) and Mr. Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali. The second event, which is the most important one, is the judgments of the Delhi High Court passed in writ proceedings instituted by its employees.

2. The Five-Judge Committee in its report stated, inter alia, that no attempt had been made to provide a separate and distinct identity to the ministerial staff belonging to the Registry of the SC. According to the Committee, the borrowed designations without any attempt at giving a distinct and independent identity to the ministerial staff in the Registry of the SC led to invidious comparison. The Committee observed that the salary scale applicable to various categories of staff in the Registry would show that at least since the Second Pay Commission appointed by the Central Government for Central Government servants, the pay-scales devised by the Pay Commission were practically bodily adopted by the Chief Justice of India for comparable categories in the SC. This was repeated after the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission were published and accepted by the Central Government. Further, it is observed that apparently with a view to avoiding the arduous task of devising a fair pay-structure of various categories of staff in the Registry, this easy course, both facile and superficial, was adopted which led to the inevitable result of linking the pay-structure for the various categories of staff in the Registry with the, pay-structure in the Central Services for comparable posts and the comparison was not functional but according to the designations. No attempt was made to really ascertain the nature of work of an employee in each category of staff and determine the pay-structure and then after framing proper rules invite the President of India to approve the rules under Article 146 of the Constitution. The Committee pointed out that the slightest attempt had not been made to compare the workload, skill, educational qualifications, responsibilities and duties of various categories of posts in the Registry and that since the days of Rajadhyakhsa Commission the work had become so complex and the work of even a clerk in the SC had such a distinct identity that it would be necessary not only to fix the minimum remuneration keeping in view the principles for determination of minimum remuneration but also to add to it the functional evaluation of the post. This, according to the Committee, required a very comprehensive investigation and the Committee was ill-equipped to do it. The Committee, inter alia, recommended that the Chief Justice of India might appoint a Committee of experts to devise a fair pay-structure for the staff of the SC keeping in view the principles of pay determination and on the recommendations of the Committee, the Chief Justice of India might frame rules under Article 146 of the Constitution and submit them for the Approval of the President of India. The Committee also took notice of the fact that the Fourth Central Pay Commission appointed by the Central Government and presided over by a former Judge of the SC, Mr. Justice P. N. Singhal, was then examining the question of pay-scales and other matters referred to it in respect of the staff of the Central Government. According to the Committee, it was an ideal situation that a former Judge of this Court was heading the Panel and he was ideally situated for examining the question of independent pay-structure for the staff in the Registry of the