Rajasthan High Court Sahayak Karamchari Sangh, through its President, Jaipur vs State of Rajasthan, through Chief Secretary, Jaipur

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1996 Supreme(Raj) 902

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Arun Madan, J.
Rajasthan High Court Sahayak Karamchari Sangh, through its President, Jaipur - Petitioner
Versus
State of Raj., through Chief Secretary, Jaipur and anr. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8002 of 1992 and 2653 of 1993.
Decided On : 14-03-1996

Headnote:
Writ petitions filed by the Rajasthan High Court Non-gazetted Ministerial Staff Association and Rajasthan High Court Sahayak Karamchari Sangh seeking upward revision of pay scales and allowances on parity with the officials and servants of Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is a directive principle of State policy which the framers of the Constitution had promised to citizens of India when it was enacted and adopted and though is not a fundamental right under the Constitution but it is Constitutional goal to be achieved by the State and is based on touch-stone of reasonable classification which should be maintained by instrumentalities of the State while dealing with two sets of individuals who are similarly placed since that would serve as adequate safeguard for upholding not only the validity of classification itself but also to ensure that it has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by it and this can only be done by equalising the pay scales and allowances as admissible to the officers and staff of Rajasthan High Court with that of corresponding posts in Delhi High Court harmoniously.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Rajasthan High Court Non-gazetted Ministerial Staff Association and Rajasthan High Court Sahayak Karamchari Sangh, filed writ petitions seeking upward revision of pay scales and allowances on parity with the officials and servants of Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioners contended that there was no qualitative and quantitative difference between the two sets of employees attached to the High Court of Rajasthan as well as Delhi High Court, and they were discharging similar duties and functions. The petitioners further contended that the State of Rajasthan had long back taken a decision to pay salary and other allowances as admissible to its employees at par with the pay and other allowances admissible to the employees of the Central Government.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is a directive principle of State policy which the framers of the Constitution had promised to citizens of India when it was enacted and adopted and though is not a fundamental right under the Constitution but it is Constitutional goal to be achieved by the State and is based on touch-stone of reasonable classification which should be maintained by instrumentalities of the State while dealing with two sets of individuals who are similarly placed since that would serve as adequate safeguard for upholding not only the validity of classification itself but also to ensure that it has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by it and this can only be done by equalising the pay scales and allowances as admissible to the officers and staff of Rajasthan High Court with that of corresponding posts in Delhi High Court harmoniously.
Issues: 1. Whether the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable to the employees of different High Courts? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to parity in pay scales and allowances with the officials and servants of Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is a directive principle of State policy which the framers of the Constitution had promised to citizens of India when it was enacted and adopted and though is not a fundamental right under the Constitution but it is Constitutional goal to be achieved by the State and is based on touch-stone of reasonable classification which should be maintained by instrumentalities of the State while dealing with two sets of individuals who are similarly placed since that would serve as adequate safeguard for upholding not only the validity of classification itself but also to ensure that it has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by it and this can only be done by equalising the pay scales and allowances as admissible to the officers and staff of Rajasthan High Court with that of corresponding posts in Delhi High Court harmoniously.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and directed the respondents to revise the pay scales and allowances of the petitioners on par with the officials and servants of Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Writ Petition No. 8002/92 was initially filed in this court by the Rajasthan High Court Non-gazetted Ministerial Staff Association through its President, Jaipur (petitioner No. 1), the members of ministerial staff i.e., L.D.C.s, U.D.C.s, Office Assistants, Stamp Reporters, Translators and Drivers working under the administrative control of the Registrar of this court (respondent No. 2) at Principal seat at Jodhpur and Bench at Jaipur. The petitioners before this court earlier, who had sought the relief in the matter of fixation/revision of their pay scales in writ petition Nos. 8002/92 and 2653/93 are the officials and servants of the Rajasthan High Court principal seat at Jodhpur and Bench at Jaipur, have moved this court for upward revision earlier and they have sought the relief of mandamus on parity with the officials and servants of Delhi High Court on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.

2. During the pendency of the writ petitions the Rajasthan High Court Private Secretaries and Stenographers' Association, Jaipur through its President, moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for being given an opportunity of being heard and for their impleadment as necessary party to the writ petition No. 8002/92 contending inter alia that the Apex Court on the basis of the judgment of Delhi High Court, on the interlocutory applications No. 2/92, 3/92, 4/92 and 5/92 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 801/86 etc. filed by the various Associations of the said court had given them necessary relief in the matter of their pay revisions at par with the officials and servants of Delhi High Court. It was further contended that though, the Rajasthan High Court Private Secretaries & Stenographers' Association had filed a writ petition No. 6724/90 which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this court on 7th Dec. 1992 and an appeal against the said order is also pending before the Division Bench, but that case related to the parity in the pay scales with the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the Govt. of India, and the sole basis was the order of Precedence, issued from time to time by the Government of India, wherein Hon'ble Judges of the High Courts have been shown at Sr. No. 17 and the Secretaries to Government of India at Sr. No. 23 whose Private Secretaries are in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500. The application of petitioner No. 2 was allowed by this court vide order dated 24th November, 1994. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 who are working as office superintendents in Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur also moved an application for their impleadment as necessary parties to the writ petition which too was allowed by this court on 8th March, 1995 on the same analogy as referred to above.

3. Writ Petition No. 2653/93 has been filed by the Rajasthan High Court Sahayak Karamchari Sangh through its President, Jaipur in the matter of fixation/revision of pay scales of class IV employees namely, Jamadars, Library Boy, Daftri, Basta Bardar, Peons, Orderlies, Cycle-sawars, Watermen, Chowkidars and Sweepers etc.

4. In both the writ petitions the petitioners have sought a direction from this court directing the respondents inter alia : (i) to pay to the members of the petitioners' associations and petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 salary and all other allowances including dearness allowance equivalent to what is paid to the employees working on the corresponding posts in Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court on parity.

5. In writ petition No. 8002/92 petitioner No. 1 Association representing the non-gazetted staff of the Rajasthan High Court principal seat at Jodhpur and bench at Jaipur, is a representative body espousing the cause of its members, i.e., the ministerial staff, while petitioner No. 2, i.e., Private Secretaries & Stenographers' Association is also a representative body and petitioner Nos. 3 to 7, Superintendents of the Rajasthan High Court, bench at Jaipur, have been impleaded as petitioners in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(Raj) 902

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHArun Madan, J.Rajasthan High Court Sahayak Karamchari Sangh, through its President, Jaipur - PetitionerVersusState of Raj., through Chief Secretary, Jaipur and anr. - RespondentsS.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8002 of 1992 and 2653 of 1993.Decided On : 14-03-1996

Cases Referred (13)

Login now and unlock premium legal research