The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a policy decision must be supported by proper reasoning and consideration of relevant material. The Court emphasized the need for a comparative analysis of the nature of duties before making decisions regarding pay scale upgrades.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner No. 1 herein is Chhattisgarh High Court Employees Association, registered under the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Adhiniyam, 1973 representing the employees and ministerial officers working in the establishment of High Court of Chhattisgarh and petitioner No. 2 who was working as Assistant Registrar at the relevant time was president of the union. They have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and have prayed that order dated 28.07.2005 (Annexure P/ 1), order dated 19.03.2007 (Annexure P/2) and memo dated 11.04.2008 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh be kindly quashed and respondent No. 1 be directed to act in accordance with the constitutional obligation under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. It has also been prayed that the respondents be kindly directed to upgrade pay scale of the ministerial officers and employees with effect from 28.07.2005 within time frame fixed by this Court with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner association has made a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court on 04.03.2004 with a prayer to upgrade the existing pay scales of the ministerial officers and employees of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in line with Delhi High Court Model to be ideal model. The Hon'ble Chief Justice examined the matter from all angles and finding their demand genuine and legitimate recommended the proposal under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India and forwarded the representation to the State Government through the Registrar General of this Court. Hon'ble Chief Justice also issued D.O. letter dated 24th December, 2004 to the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State with a request to consider the proposal and has taken note of the facts as under :-

“Considering these facts and that the scales of pay of Delhi High Court, High Court of Himachal Pradesh and some other High Courts are higher than the High Court of Chhattisgarh, the demand is genuine and deserves to be accepted.

The strength of the employees of the Chhattisgarh High Court is very less in comparison to the other High Courts. Therefore, in my opinion the demand of the employees is justified from all angles and their request requires sympathetic consideration.”

3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Law and Legislature Affairs Department vide its memo dated 19.03.2004 (Annexure P/9) sought financial implication to the High Court if the pay scale is upgraded. The Registrar General of this Court vide memo dated 06.04.2004 submitted the financial implication at that relevant time to the tune of Rs. 47,34,972/- per annum. Government of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department communicated vide memo dated 28.07.2005 that as per the General Administration Department, it is not feasible to upgrade the pay scale of the employees of the High Court treating their work to be special in nature. Further vide memo dated 19.03.2007 the Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs communicated that the finance department has rejected the proposal. Thereafter, vide memo dated 11.04.2008 it was communicated that Government of Chhattisgarh has again disagreed with the proposal. These orders have been assailed before this Court by filing this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that as per the Justice Shetty Commission's recommendation, advance increment has been granted to the ministerial officers and employees of the Subordinate Judiciary of the State, but no such upgraded pay scale has been granted to the ministerial officers and employees of the High Court of State though they are similarly situated and are getting lesser salary than the employees working in the subordinate judiciary of the High Court. He would further submit that it is not in dispute that the employees of the High Court are working h