Important point
The Court cannot, in the guise of judicial review, usurp the powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution and fix a pay scale different from one prescribed in exercise of the said power.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Articles 229 and 226—Calcutta High Court (Appellate Side) Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1981—Fixation of pay scales—Traditional rivalry between the officers working on the Appellate Side and those working on the Original Side—Recording Officers on the Original Side, earlier styled as ‘Shorthand Writers’ petitioned the Chief Justice and requested that they be equated with Assistant Registrars on the Original Side—Notification of Rules—Prescription of identical pay scales to the two categories of the High Court employees—Government proposals for further revision of pay scales of certain categories of employees of the High Court on Appellate Side—Recording Officers filed Writ Petition praying that the State Government and the High Court be restrained from giving effect to the Government’s proposals and granting an additional special pay of Rs. 50/- p.m. to the Assistant Registrars on the Appellate Side—Whether it was open to the High Court to recommend to the State Government or for the State Government to accept payment of additional fifty rupees special pay only in respect of Assistant Registrars (Court) on Appellate Side—(Yes)—It is entirely a matter of assessment by the High Court as to equivalence of work done in the two categories.
Held : In our view, it is entirely a matter of the assessment by the High Court as to the equivalence of the work done in the two categories. In a matter like this, the assessment of the quality of work done by the two categories of employees must necessarily be left to the judgment of the employer, which in the present case is the High Court. The challenge to the Resolution of the Full Court of the High Court and to the Government’s Order dated 19.9.1983 also has no merit. The Special Bench judgment under appeal has carefully considered the contentions and pointed out that it is not within the province of the High Court to fix the pay scales of various employees in exercise its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whatever may have been the grievance, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to direct fixation of pay scales or special pay. (Paras 21 and 22)
We agree with the conclusion of the Special Bench that the court cannot, in the guise of judicial review, usurp the powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution and fix a pay scale different from one prescribed in exercise of the said power. (Para 23)

Judgment

Srikrishna, J.—This appeal by special leave impugns the judgment of the Special Bench of five Judges of the High Court of Calcutta, which allowed two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. APO 601/87 and APO 604/87 and dismissed Appeal No. 187/88 and Writ Petition No. 5497/87. Appeals, APO 601/87 and APO 604/87 arose out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge (Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.) in Writ Petition No. 1033/84. Appeal No. 187/88 and Writ Petition No. 5497/87 that raised similar issues were also referred to the Full Bench. The Full Bench by a common judgment decided all the matters assigned to it.

2. In all the Chartered High Courts, which exercise Original Jurisdiction, there has been traditional rivalry between the officers working on the Appellate Side and those working on the Original Side. The case on hand is yet another example of this rivalry resulting in expenditure of judicial time and talent which could have been utilised for better purposes.

Facts :

3. The appellants before us are officers on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court designated as Recording Officers (Court). They were traditionally and historically treated as equal in status with Assistant Registrar (Court) on the Appellate Side. Before the First Pay Commission’s recommendations, the pay scales applicable to these two categories were the same. Prior to 1961 the pay scale was Rs. 250-400; after 1961 pay revision the pay scale applicable to both the categories was Rs. 500-700 and on and after 24.10.1968 both the categories of officers were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 300-900. The First Pay Commission recommended that the same emoluments be paid to these two categories of officers.

4. The Recording officers on the Original Side were earlier styled as ‘Shorthand Writers’. The High Court on the Original Side maintained that the post of Shorthand Writer on the Original Side was comparable to that of Court Officer on the Appellate Side. Successive Chief Justices reiterated this position and recommended to the State Government that parity be maintained in the emoluments payable to these two categories. The Shorthand Writers on the Original Side of the High Court represented to the Hon’ble Chief Justice by a petition dated 30.5.1972 that their designation be changed from “Shorthand Writer” to “Court Reporting Officer”. By an Order of 27.7.1972 the designation of Bench Clerks/Court Officers of the Appellate Side were changed to Assistant Registrars (Appellate Side). Immediately thereafter, on 10.8.1972, the Shorthand Writers petitioned the Chief Justice and requested that they be equated with Assistant Registrars on the Original Side.

5. On 6.12.1972, the Chief Justice constituted a Special Committee of five learned Judges to consider the following:

“(a) The representation of the Assistant Registrars (Court ) on the Appellate Side for revision of their scale of pay;

(b) The representation of the Assistant Court Officers on the Appellate Side for revision of their scale of pay and their designation;

6. The Special Committee considered the matter and by its Report dated 26.4.1973 made the following recommendations:

“(a) The Assistant Registrars (Court), Appellate Side be given the same salary, scale of pay, emoluments and status as those of the Assistant Registrars, Original Side.

(b) The claim of the Assistant Court Officers to be designated as Court Officers be not accepted but their scale of pay of Rs. 600-860/- be recommended to the Government for acceptance.

(d) The designation of the Interpreters on the Original Side be changed to “Court Interpreting Officers”.

7. Recommendations of the Special Committee were considered in a Full Court Meeting held on 22.8.1973 and the Full Court of the High Court passed the following releva

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 735

Important pointThe Court cannot, in the guise of judicial review, usurp the powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution and fix a pay scale different from one prescribed in exercise of the said power.

Important point
The Court cannot, in the guise of judicial review, usurp the powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution and fix a pay scale different from one prescribed in exercise of the said power.