Point of Law: Article 229 of the Constitution of India, which reads as Officers and servants and expenses of High Courts.

ORDER :

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs :

“It is therefore, humbly prayed, that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(i) the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of one advance increment to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.5.2013 as has been granted to the other staff members of the Rajasthan High Court vide communication dated 1.6.2017;

(ii) the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the overtime allowance to the petitioners;

(iii) the communication dated 1.6.2017 (Anx.-6) may kindly be ordered to be modified accordingly.

(iv) the communication dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-13) and the decision taken by the finance department in rejecting the proposal sent by the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be set aside.

(v) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”

2. The petitioner No.1 is the Association, whose members are Class-IV employes, Jamadars (Usher), Basta Bardar, Daftari, Library Boy, Cook, Waiter and Sweeper serving under the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the Chauffeurs (Drivers) attached to the Hon’ble Judges of this Court and protocol duties.

3. The petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Court by way of writ of mandamus to direct the State Government to grant them benefit of one advance increment w.e.f. 01.05.2013.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the State Government vide letter dated 01.06.2017 (Annexure-6) granted the benefit of one advance increment to the ‘Judicial Assistant’, ‘Junior Judicial Assistant’, ‘Senior Personal Assistant’, ‘Personal Assistant’ and ‘Junior Personal Assistant’, however, deprived the petitioners from the said benefit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that though, time and again the Rajasthan High Court through the Registrar General sent recommendations to the Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs Department, Jaipur for granting one advance increment to its employees but the State Government while accepting the said recommendations in respect of some of the employees denied the same in respect of the petitioners without justifying reasons.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court, after taking into consideration the report of the committee, has come to the conclusion that the Class-IV employees and Chauffeur (Driver) of Rajasthan High Court performed hard duties with full dedication even after office hours and on holidays without claiming any CCL or over time allowances particularly having overburdened due to acute shortage of staff, one advance increment be granted to them but the State Government, without giving strong and cogent reasons, rejected the proposal of granting one advance increment to the petitioners in cryptic manner.

7. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the recommendations of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court should ordinarily be approved by the State Government and refusal thereof must be for strong and adequate reasons. It is argued that the State Government should bear in mind the special nature of work being done by the employees of Rajasthan High Court of which Hon’ble the Chief Justice and His Companion Judges alone can really appreciate and when Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court took a decision on the basis of the recommendation of the committee, the State Government should not have treated the same in casual manner.

8. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision dated 05.01.2004 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Another Vs. S.B. Vohra and Othe