IMPORTANT POINT
The Rule and the recommendation in question, made by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Kerala, were implicitly supported by the reasons as extracted afore, it is distressing that Government does not even appear their counter pleadings on record being conspicuously silent -to have adverted to them, but choose to “reject” it through Ext.P7.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner states that at the time when this writ petition was filed, he was working as the Private Secretary to the Chief Justice of High Court of Kerala. It is conceded that he has since retired from service.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P7 Government Order, dated 28.04.2018, as per which, the Rules framed by the Chief Justice under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India, sanctioning the scale of pay of Rs.85000-117600 to the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Justice, as is evident from Exts.P2, P4 and P5, has been “rejected”.

3. The petitioner contends that Ext.P7 is illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the well established principles of comity between the two Constitutional Institutions; and therefore, prays that said proceedings, to the extent to which it relates to non-sanctioning of the recommended scale of pay to the Private Secretary to the Chief Justice, be set aside and the Government be directed to grant the pay as recommended by Exts.P2, P4 and P5.

4. I have heard Sri.K.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.Brijesh Mohan - learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Sri.B.G.Hareendranath-learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose-learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3.

5. When I proceed to consider the issues impelled in this writ petition, my path certainly is guided by the affirmative declarations and views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra and Ors. [2019 (4) SCT 360(SC)]. In this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has pellucidly and unequivocally spoken about the manner and approach of the interaction required between the Judiciary and the Executive, within the umbra of Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. The specific views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this aspect are available in paragraphs 19, 20, 25 and 26 of the said judgment, which is extracted infra to enable a full reading:

19. It seems to us that the proviso to 229(2) (as also Article 146), does not reflect an architecture of hierarchy. We think that the correct constitutional approach is one of comity between different institutions working under the Constitution. The emphasis is not on the supremacy of one institution or demarcating the boundaries of the other. It is about ensuring institutional integrity of one while respecting the functional domain of the other. These provisions are meant to facilitate a dialogue of governance between high constitutional functionaries. A healthy dialogue, perhaps, even a debate is necessary for an efficient constitutional polity. The constitutional vision is not to draw “lakshman rekhas” between constitutional functionaries; its command is for the constitutional functionaries to efficiently coordinate to best achieve constitutional goals. It is this constitutional essence that was ignored when the request of the Ld. Chief Justice was not even placed before the Governor.

20. That independence of Judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution is now well entrenched. The Constitution has insulated the Judiciary from outside influences both by the Executive and legislature. Article 223 to 234 in Chapter VI in part VI of the Constitution dealing with the Courts below the High Courts also show that the Constitution makers were equally keen to insulate even Subordinate Judiciary. Independence of Judiciary takes within its sweep independence of the individual Judges in relation to their appointments, tenure, payment of salaries and also non-removal except by way of impeachment. An integral part of Independence of Judiciary', as a constitutional value is the 'Institutional Independence' i.e. the aspect concerning the financial freedom or autonomy which the judiciary must possess and enjoy. This effective involvement of the judicial branch in budgeting, staff and infrastructure has also been recognized by the international communi