Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA (FULL BENCH)
TARUN CHATTERJEE, GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, DIPAK PRAKAS KUNDU & BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, JJ.
Baidyanath Mukherjee
Vs.
Vivekananda Goswami & Ors.
Registrar, High Court, A.S.
Vs.
Vivekananda Goswami
Osman Ghani Dewan & Ors.
Vs.
State of West Bengal
Achyut Kumar Banerjee & Ors.
vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
APO 601 and 604 of 1987, APO 187 of 1988 with C.R. 1861 (W) of 1984
Decided on: October 6, 1999
The judgment deals with the issue of whether the High Court has the authority to fix pay scales for its employees and the scope of its power under Article 229(2) of the Indian Constitution. The dispute arose from two writ petitions filed by different groups of High Court employees challenging the pay scales set by the State Government and the Full Court of the High Court. The petitioners argued that the decisions were made without following the principles of natural justice and violated their fundamental rights. The High Court, in a comprehensive judgment, analyzed the relevant provisions of the Constitution and various precedents set by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the power conferred upon the Chief Justice under Article 229(2) is legislative in nature and is akin to the power of the Chief Justice of India under Article 146 of the Constitution. The rules framed by the Chief Justice under Article 229(2) have statutory and binding force. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice have no application in the exercise of legislative power, and therefore, the decisions of the State Government and the Full Court were not subject to challenge on those grounds. The Court further clarified that the High Court cannot usurp the legislative power conferred by Article 229(2) and fix pay scales. The conditions of service, including salaries and allowances, of High Court employees must be guided and governed by rules framed in accordance with Article 229(2) and not by judicial orders. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that the fixation of pay scales is a matter to be determined by the executive government and not by the Court. The Court also addressed the issue of interim payments made to the petitioners during the pendency of the appeals. It directed that the extra payments be recovered from the petitioners as per the terms of the interim orders passed earlier. In conclusion, the Court dismissed both writ petitions and allowed the appeals filed by the State Government and the High Court authorities. It reiterated that the High Court's power under Article 229(2) is legislative in nature and cannot be used to fix pay scales or interfere with the rule-making process prescribed by the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
Two writ petitions were filed by different groups of High Court employees challenging the pay scales set by the State Government and the Full Court of the High Court. The petitioners argued that the decisions were made without following the principles of natural justice and violated their fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the power conferred upon the Chief Justice under Article 229(2) is legislative in nature and is akin to the power of the Chief Justice of India under Article 146 of the Constitution. The rules framed by the Chief Justice under Article 229(2) have statutory and binding force. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice have no application in the exercise of legislative power, and therefore, the decisions of the State Government and the Full Court were not subject to challenge on those grounds. The Court further clarified that the High Court cannot usurp the legislative power conferred by Article 229(2) and fix pay scales. The conditions of service, including salaries and allowances, of High Court employees must be guided and governed by rules framed in accordance with Article 229(2) and not by judicial orders. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that the fixation of pay scales is a matter to be determined by the executive government and not by the Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has the authority to fix pay scales for its employees? 2. Whether the decisions of the State Government and the Full Court were made in violation of the principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the High Court can interfere with the rule-making process prescribed by Article 229(2) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power conferred upon the Chief Justice under Article 229(2) is legislative in nature and is akin to the power of the Chief Justice of India under Article 146 of the Constitution. 2. The rules framed by the Chief Justice under Article 229(2) have statutory and binding force. 3. The principles of natural justice have no application in the exercise of legislative power. 4. The High Court cannot usurp the legislative power conferred by Article 229(2) and fix pay scales. 5. The conditions of service, including salaries and allowances, of High Court employees must be guided and governed by rules framed in accordance with Article 229(2) and not by judicial orders.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both writ petitions and allowed the appeals filed by the State Government and the High Court authorities.
D.P. Kundu, J.
1. All these matters have been heard together by a Bench of five Judges of this High Court because the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this High Court by his order dated 29.10.87 under Chapter XXI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Rule 48 of the Rules under Article 226 of the Constitution of India determined that the aforesaid two appeals being APO 601 of 1987 and APO 604 of 1987 would be heard by a Bench of five Judges of this Court for, inter alia, following reasons :
"These two appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge in Matter No. 1033 of 1984, involve substantial questions of law affecting the administration in the Appellate Side and the Original Side of this Court. Hierarchy, status, pay and allowances admissible to certain categories of employees serving in the Appellate Side and the Original Side of this Court arise for decision."
These two appeals being APO 601 of 1987 and APO 604 of 1987 are arising out of a judgment and order dated 14.8.1987 passed by Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. (as he then was) in Matter No. 1033 of 1984.
2. Subsequently in the year 1987, after the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.8.1987 was delivered by Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J., some Interpretor Officers (Court) on the Original Side of this High Court initiated another writ proceeding being Matter No. 5497 of 1987. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with an order dated 10th March, 1988 passed by Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J., in Matter No. 5497 of 1987 the petitioners in Matter No. 5497 of 1987 preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 187 of 1988. The said appeal and Matter No. 5497 of 1987 had been assigned to this Full Bench for hearing with the aforesaid two appeals because the subject matter involved in Matter No. 5497 of 1987 are similar to those in Matter No. 1033 of 1984.
3. Unfortunately the Bench originally constituted by the Chief Justice by his order dated 19.10.1987 could not complete the hearing of the appeals, therefore, time to time coram of the Bench was altered or modified and lastly the present Bench of five Judges of this Court could complete the hearing of the appeals.
4. Two appeals being APO 601/87 and APO 604/87 were preferred by two different group of appellants against the judgment and order passed by the ld. Single Judge Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. (as he then was) in Matter No. 1033 of 1984. Therefore, before looking at the judgment and order passed by Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J., which is subject matter of these appeals, it is necessary to look at the case sought to be made out by the writ petitioners in their writ petitions.
5. In matter No. 1033 of 1984 from paragraph 32 of the writ application it is apparent that the writ petitioners called in question or challenged the legality of (i) State Government Memo. No. 24382-J/J. 1E-56/81 (Pt. II) dated September 19, 1983, (ii) Full Court Resolution/Recommendation dated August 22, 1973 and (iii) Court's letter No. 18235-J, dated December 22, 1981. Prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the writ petition also show that the writ petitioners sought relief in respect of and challenged the legality of (i) State Government Memo. No. 24382-J/J. 1E-56/81 (Pt. II) dated September 19, 1983, (ii) Full Court Resolution/Recommendation dated August 22, 1973 and (iii) Court's letter No. 18235-J, dated December 22, 1981.
6. In Matter No. 5497 of 1987 from paragraph 68 and prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the writ application it is apparent that the writ petitioners called in question or challenged the legality of (i) Full Court Resolution dated 22nd August, 1973, (ii) Recommendation dated 22nd December, 1981 and (iii) Order dated 19th September, 1983. Thus it appears that the subject matter of challenge in Matter No. 1033 of 1984 and Matter No. 5497 of 1987 are same.
7. In Matter No. 1033 of 1984 the writ petitioners stated that they were previously designated as Senior Shorthand Writer and Shorthand Writers respectively in the Original Side of Calcutta High Court and those posts were
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
