2026 Supreme(Gau) 827

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Dilip Kumar Devasarma S/o Late Hareswar Sarma - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent 
WP(C) No.7066 of 2024
Decided On : 22-05-2026

Ministerial staff of specialized judicial tribunals performing duties equivalent to administrative heads in district courts are entitled to pay parity under the principle of equal pay for equal work, as such tribunals are bound by the administrative control of the High Court and constitutional equality provisions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 235, 236 - Independence of judiciary - Control of High Court over subordinate courts - Implementation of pay commission recommendations - Parity in pay and service conditions - Ministerial staff of specialized tribunals are subject to administrative control of High Court. (Paras 63-65)

(B) Service Law - Equal pay for equal work - Parity of pay between ministerial staff of specialized tribunals and district establishment - Nature of duties and responsibilities - Whether source of recruitment or appointing department can justify discriminatory pay scales - Denial of parity for identical duties constitutes irrational classification and violates fundamental rights. (Paras 68-70, 73)

(C) Judicial Administration - Status of specialized tribunals - Whether such tribunals are subordinate courts within constitutional framework - The administrative head of the ministerial establishment in such tribunals performs duties akin to chief administrative officers in district courts and is entitled to equal status and pay. (Paras 51-52, 60)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, serving as an administrative head in a specialized court, challenged the denial of pay parity with comparable administrative heads in district establishments. Despite recommendations to equate the pay scale, the government rejected the proposal on the grounds that the post was under a different administrative department and recruitment processes differed, leading to the exclusion of this post from the benefits extended to other subordinate court staff.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the functions performed are functionally equivalent to those of administrative heads in district courts. It concluded that all ministerial staff within the subordinated judicial framework fall under the comprehensive administrative control of the High Court. Treating identical posts differently solely based on the appointing department or the source of recruitment is discriminatory and violates constitutional equality principles.

Issues: Whether specialized judicial tribunals constitute subordinate courts under constitutional control of the High Court and whether the administrative head of such tribunals is entitled to pay parity with counterparts in the district judiciary despite differences in the appointing department.

Ratio Decidendi: Given the functional identity of duties and the constitutional mandate requiring independence of the judiciary, ministerial staff attached to specialized judicial tribunals must be treated on par with other district court staff. Discriminatory pay structures based on administrative origin without intelligible differentia violate constitutional mandates against arbitrary state action.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned orders quashed with directions to grant equal pay scale and grade pay.

Table of Content
1. creation of industrial tribunal posts and historical pay scale discrepancies for registrars. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. applicability of shetty commission recommendations to subordinate judiciary, including labour courts. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. administrative resolutions for pay parity vs. executive denial by the finance department. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. contentions regarding administrative control and recruitment source of registrars vs. sheristadars. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
5. functional similarity between registrars of industrial tribunals and chief administrative officers of district courts. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
6. constitutional control of the high court over subordinate judiciary and ministerial staff under article 235. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
7. principle of equal pay for equal work and violation of article 14 by disparate treatment of tribunals. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)
8. final directions to grant parity in pay scale based on high court's administrative control. (Para 74 , 75)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. P. D. Nair, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. I have also heard Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel of the Gauhati High Court; Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance Department of the Government of Assam and Mr. R. K. Talukdar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General.

PREFACE

2. The Petitioner herein who is rendering services as Registrar of the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 20.01.2023 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department to the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals of Assam inter alia intimating the latter, the denial of enhancement of Grade Pay of Registrars of the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts to be at par with the Sheristadars of the District and Sessions Judges Establishment. The Petitioner further seeks for appropriate directions that the post of the Registrar, Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts of Assam should be brought at par with the Sheristadars of the District and Sessions Judges Establishment as approved and recommended by the Committee of the Gauhati High Court for consideration of the Shetty Commission's recommendations on revision of pay scale etc. of the Subordinate Courts staff of Assam, in the meeting held on 05.10.2012 w.e.f. the date of enhancement of the pay scale of the said Sheristadars, i.e. 01.04.2003 as provided in the Notification No.JDJ.147/2012/17 dated 30.07.2012 issued by the Legal Remembrancer and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ALONGWITH THE RESPECTIVE PLEADINGS

3. The posts of a Presiding Officers, Registrars and other staffs were sanctioned for different Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts in Assam by the Governor of Assam vide communications dated 20.05.1957, 22.07.1966 and 27.01.1981.

4. It is very pertinent at this stage to take note of the creation of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court at Dibrugarh vide the communication dated 22.07.1966. The said document is a part of Annexure-1 Colly. A perusal of the said communication would show that for the Industrial Tribunal as well as for the Labour Court, at Dibrugarh posts were created with Scale of Pay. The Scale of Pay for the posts of Presiding Officer and the Registrar being relevant is quoted herein under:-

“Officer post with Scale of Pay.

1. Presiding Officer (One) in the Scale of Pay of Rs.1200-60-1300-(EB)-60-1500/- p.m.

2. Registrar (one) in the Scale of Pay of Rs.375-15-435-(EB)-20-575/- p.m.”

5. In the said communication, various staff posts were also created with Scale of P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document