Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Nishita Mhatre, Tapash Mookherjee, JJ.
State of West Bengal & Others - Appellants
Vs.
The High Court Employees’ Welfare Association & Others - Respondents
A.P.O. 185 of 2011; W.P. 1630 of 2010; G.A. 3594 of 2015; APOT 544 of 2015 & C.C. No. 28 of 2012
Decided On : 23-06-2016
HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES - SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES - RECOMMENDATIONS OF SPECIAL PAY COMMISSION - IMPLEMENTATION - APPROVAL OF GOVERNOR - CONDITIONS OF SERVICE - RULES FRAMING - CHIEF JUSTICE'S AUTHORITY - APPROVAL OF GOVERNOR - FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS - DIALOGUE AND CONSULTATION - HIGH COURT ALLOWANCE - MERGER WITH BASIC PAY - DEARNESS ALLOWANCE AND TRANSPORT ALLOWANCE - PAYMENT AT CENTRAL RATES - JUSTIFICATION - FINANCIAL BURDEN ON STATE - VIABILITY - JUDICIAL SCRUTINY - SCOPE - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - ISSUANCE - CONDITIONS - VIBRANT JUDICIARY - EMPLOYEES' SATISFACTION - REASONABLE SALARY - NEGOTIATIONS - RULES FRAMING - GOVERNOR'S APPROVAL.
Fact of the Case:
Employees of the Calcutta High Court have been waiting for the recommendations of the Special Pay Commission submitted on 24th August, 2010, regarding their pay allowances and other service conditions, to be implemented. The recommendations have been tossed to and fro between the State Government and the High Court Administration and have been the subject matter of litigation without any substantial justice being done to the employees.
Finding of the Court:
1. The learned single Judge has not transgressed the boundaries while directing the State to continue the dialogue with the Hon’ble Chief Justice with the recommendations of the judicial members of the Pay Commission as the bedrock for future discussions. 2. The State should have considered whether the merger of these increments could be made after a particular date if not from the date on which they were released as suggested by the employees. 3. The administrative members of the Commission were expected to decide the reference made to them judicially and judiciously instead of parroting the stance of the Government. 4. The strident opposition of the State to the recommendations made by the judicial members or even the lesser demand made by the High Court employees now is because of the manner in which it was castigated by the learned single Judge for not obeying his orders passed in the contempt petition. 5. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court should consider accepting the proposals of the High Court employees for merger of the High Court Allowance with the basic pay and/or for payment of the Dearness Allowance and Transport Allowance at the Central rates and recommend the same to the State for approval by the Governor of the State. 6. The employees would hardly be expected to give good service to the institution if they are not motivated enough by payment of adequate salaries. 7. When recommendations are made by a high functionary like the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the State, they should normally be accepted by the State unless there are justifiable reasons for rejecting the same. 8. The argument on behalf of the State that it does not have the financial wherewithal to accord approval to the demands of the High Court employees is untenable. 9. A vibrant judiciary can only perform to its optimum level if the employees who assist in the administration of justice are not dissatisfied. 10. The demand of the High Court employees is reasonable and justified. However, ultimately this demand can be granted only through negotiations and with the rules being framed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice for approval of the Governor of the State.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned single Judge has transgressed the boundaries while directing the State to continue the dialogue with the Hon’ble Chief Justice with the recommendations of the judicial members of the Pay Commission as the bedrock for future discussions? 2. Whether the State should have considered whether the merger of these increments could be made after a particular date if not from the date on which they were released as suggested by the employees? 3. Whether the administrative members of the Commission were expected to decide the reference made to them judicially and judiciously instead of parroting the stance of the Government? 4. Whether the strident opposition of the State to the recommendations made by the judicial members or even the lesser demand made by the High Court employees now is because of the manner in which it was castigated by the learned single Judge for not obeying his orders passed in the contempt petition? 5. Whether the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court should consider accepting the proposals of the High Court employees for merger of the High Court Allowance with the basic pay and/or for payment of the Dearness Allowance and Transport Allowance at the Central rates and recommend the same to the State for approval by the Governor of the State? 6. Whether the employees would hardly be expected to give good service to the institution if they are not motivated enough by payment of adequate salaries? 7. Whether when recommendations are made by a high functionary like the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the State, they should normally be accepted by the State unless there are justifiable reasons for rejecting the same? 8. Whether the argument on behalf of the State that it does not have the financial wherewithal to accord approval to the demands of the High Court employees is untenable? 9. Whether a vibrant judiciary can only perform to its optimum level if the employees who assist in the administration of justice are not dissatisfied? 10. Whether the demand of the High Court employees is reasonable and justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The learned single Judge has not transgressed the boundaries while directing the State to continue the dialogue with the Hon’ble Chief Justice with the recommendations of the judicial members of the Pay Commission as the bedrock for future discussions. 2. The State should have considered whether the merger of these increments could be made after a particular date if not from the date on which they were released as suggested by the employees. 3. The administrative members of the Commission were expected to decide the reference made to them judicially and judiciously instead of parroting the stance of the Government. 4. The strident opposition of the State to the recommendations made by the judicial members or even the lesser demand made by the High Court employees now is because of the manner in which it was castigated by the learned single Judge for not obeying his orders passed in the contempt petition. 5. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court should consider accepting the proposals of the High Court employees for merger of the High Court Allowance with the basic pay and/or for payment of the Dearness Allowance and Transport Allowance at the Central rates and recommend the same to the State for approval by the Governor of the State. 6. The employees would hardly be expected to give good service to the institution if they are not motivated enough by payment of adequate salaries. 7. When recommendations are made by a high functionary like the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the State, they should normally be accepted by the State unless there are justifiable reasons for rejecting the same. 8. The argument on behalf of the State that it does not have the financial wherewithal to accord approval to the demands of the High Court employees is untenable. 9. A vibrant judiciary can only perform to its optimum level if the employees who assist in the administration of justice are not dissatisfied. 10. The demand of the High Court employees is reasonable and justified.
Final Decision: The appeal and applications filed therein are disposed of accordingly.
Nishita Mhatre, J.
1. The employees of the High Court at Calcutta have been waiting patiently to have the recommendations of the Special Pay Commission which were submitted on 24th August, 2010 with regard to their pay allowances and other service conditions, implemented. These recommendations have been tossed to and fro between the State Government and the High Court Administration and have been the subject matter of litigation without any substantial justice being done to the employees. Besides 2 (two) increments which have been given to them after the interim report was submitted on 22nd April, 2009, the employees have got no further benefit pursuant to the recommendations of Special Pay Commission.
2. A Special Pay Commission was appointed in 1996 by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court with only Hon’ble Judges of this High Court as its members for recommending the pay scales and allowances payable to the staff and officers of the High Court. The recommendations made by the Special Pay Commission of 1996 were accepted by the Full Court, and the State Government was requested to agree to pay them. However, the State Government refused to accept these recommendations. This led the respondent, i.e., the High Court Employees’ Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as “Welfare Association”) to file a writ petition directly under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 134 of 1999. An interim order was passed in this writ petition on 16th November, 2003 where the Supreme Court noted its earlier judgment in the Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association vs. Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 187. The Supreme Court had observed in that judgment: “the rules framed by a very high dignitary such as the Chief Justice of India should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted.” The Supreme Court noted in the case of the Calcutta High Court employees that the primary reason for the Governor to refuse to approve the proposed draft rules containing the recommendations of the Special Pay Commission was the inability of the State to bear the financial burden. The Court observed that there was an exchange of correspondence between the State Government and the Hon’ble Chief Justice. However, there was no meeting point. The Court then observed as under:-
“The Government will have to bear in mind the special nature of the work done in the High Court of which the Chief Justice and his colleagues alone could really appreciate, if the Government does not desire to meet the needs of the High Court, the administration of the High Court will face severe crisis. Hence, a Special Pay Commission consisting of Judges and the Administrators shall be constituted by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Government to make a report and on receipt of such report, the Chief Justice and the Government shall thrash out the problem and work out an appropriate formula in regard to pay scales to be fixed for the High Court employees. Let such action be taken within 6 months from today.”
3. The State Government constituted the Fifth Pay Commission in the year 2008 for recommending the pay and allowances for government employees. The Finance Secretary by his letter dated 1st September, 2008 sought the consent of the High Court for making the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission applicable to the High Court employees. The Registrar General of the High Court, by his letter dated 14th November, 2008, conveyed the approval for inclusion of the employees of the High Court on both the Original and the Appellate Side as well as the employees of the High Guest House and of the West Bengal Judicial Academy (hereinafter referred to as “High Court employees”) within the terms of reference before the Fifth Pay Commission. Later, the High Court decided to withdraw its employees from the purview o
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
