Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of Himachal Pradesh
Versus
P. O. Attri
Decided on : February 11, 1999
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT - EMPLOYEES' PAY SCALE - REDESIGNATION AND EQUATION OF POSTS - PARITY WITH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES - APPLICABILITY OF RULES AND REGULATIONS - APPROVAL OF GOVERNOR - RECOMMENDATIONS OF CHIEF JUSTICE - JUDICIAL DEFERENCE - CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - ARTICLE 229 AND 231.
Fact of the Case:
Employees of the Himachal Pradesh High Court sought parity in pay scale and re-designation of their posts with employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, claiming that the State government had a policy and practice of adopting the pay scales sanctioned for the latter. The High Court allowed their petition, directing the State government to accord approval for the re-designation and equation of posts from a particular date.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the State of Himachal Pradesh was not bound to follow every change brought in the States of Punjab and Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to their employees. The State government had the discretion to adopt or not adopt such changes. However, the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the High Court for re-designation and equation of posts should be given due deference and utmost consideration by the State government.
Issues: 1. Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh was bound to follow every change brought in the States of Punjab and Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to their employees? 2. Whether the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the High Court for re-designation and equation of posts should be given due deference and utmost consideration by the State government?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court held that the State of Himachal Pradesh was not bound to follow every change brought in the States of Punjab and Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to their employees. The State government had the discretion to adopt or not adopt such changes. This was because India is a union of States, and each State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution. One State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the other State. 2. The Supreme Court held that the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the High Court for re-designation and equation of posts should be given due deference and utmost consideration by the State government. This was because the Chief Justice is empowered to frame rules regulating the conditions of service of the officers and servants of the High Court, including the power to revise the scale of pay. Since such a rule would involve finances, it requires the approval of the governor, which means the State government. Therefore, the State government should ordinarily and generally accord approval to the recommendations of the Chief Justice.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and directed the State government to consider the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court having regard to the observations made by the Supreme Court and take a decision at an early date.
Judgment
D. P. WADHWA, J.
( 1 ) STATE of Himachal Pradesh In this appeal has challenged the Judgment dated 21/05/1992 of the division bench of the High court of Himachal Pradesh (here in after referred to as the high court) allowing the writ petition filed by certain categories of employees of the High court seeking parity in pay scale from a particular date and re-designation of their posts with theemployees of the Punjab and Haryana High court. High court by the impugned judgment directed the State Government "to accord and convey the approval for the re-designation and equation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators with Revisers and Translators and equate them with the posts of Superintendents Grade-11 and Assistants in the Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat from 23/1/1975 within two months from today and on receiving this approval, the second respondent will take the consequential steps within one month thereafter and grant such other and further reliefs to the petitioners that may flow out of the same".
( 2 ) IN coming to this decision, High court was guided by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High court in the Sunder Sham Kapur and Ors. vs. Honble chief justice and Ors. 1987 (4 SLR 460. On the basis of this judgment, chief justice Punjab and Haryana High court had directed that the petitioners therein were entitled to the benefit of re-designation and equation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators from 23/1/1975. It was conceded before the High court that since as per policy and practice, the State government was adopting the pay-scales sanctioned for the officers and servants of the Punjab and Haryana High court and accordingly the chief justice of the High court had similarly recommended for the re-designation and equation of the posts in question from 23/1/1975. The aforesaid judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Sunder Sham kapurs case (supra) has been reversed by this court in Punjab and Haryana High court; Chandigarh through its Registrar vs. Sunder Sham Kapoor and Ors. JT1997 (1 )SC 412]. . This court said that Revisors earlier designated as Translators would be entitled to revised pay-scale from 5/8/1980 as per the order dated 17/11/1987 and not from 23/1/1975. At the beginning of arguments, it was submitted before us by the respondents that they would be satisfied if this court ordered that the respondents in the present case working in the High court would beheld entitled to similar pay scale as provided to their counterparts in the Punjab and Haryana High court w. e. f. 5/8/1980. We do not, however, think it is as simple as that.
( 3 ) THE respondents before us are employees working in the establishment of the High court as Senior Translators and Junior Translators. They are governed by the Himachal Pradesh High court Officers and Servants (Salaries, Leave, Allowance and Pension) Rules, 1971 (for short, the Rules ). Similar posts in the establishment of the Punjab and Haryana High court are governed by Punjab and Haryana High court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973. Relevant provisions of these Rules of Punjab and Haryana High court were given effect in that High court w. e. f. 25/9/1985 as per notification dated 23/1/1986 after receiving approval of the President of India under clause (2 of Article 229 read with Article 231 of the Constitution. As a result, posts of Senior Translators were redesignated as Revisors and equated with the posts of Superintendent Grade-11 in the Establishment of the Punjab Civil Secretariat. Similarly posts of Junior Translators were redesignated as Translators and equated with the posts of Assistant in the Establishment of thepunjab Civil Secretariat. Consequent upon the redesignation of these posts in Punjab and Haryana High court, these posts were similarly REDESIGNATEd/equated in the High court by the chief justice after obtaining approval from the governor of the State. That was by notifi
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
