SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(HP) 2293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Before (Division Bench)
The Hon ’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice
The Hon ’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge.
CWP No. 4652 of 2009. Decided on: July 20, 2011.
HP Non-gazetted Judicial Employees Welfare Association Vrs. State of H.P. & ors.

Advocates:
For the petitioner:Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG,
with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. AG, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

The State is bound to implement the recommendations of the Shetty Commission Report for the employees of the District Courts and other Subordinate Courts, in respect of the matters not covered by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts’ Employees (Pay, Allowances and other Conditions of Service) Act, 2005.

Headnote:

Court Staff - Service Conditions - Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts’ Employees (Pay, Allowances and other Conditions of service) Act, 2005 - Section 3

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, H.P. Non-gazetted Judicial Employees Welfare Association, sought the implementation of the Shetty Commission Report recommendations for the employees of the District Courts and other Subordinate Courts, which were not covered by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts’ Employees (Pay, Allowances and other Conditions of Service) Act, 2005.

Finding of the Court:

The Court directed the respondents to implement the recommendations of the Shetty Commission Report in respect of the employees of the District Courts and other Subordinate Courts, in respect of the matters not covered by the Schedule to the Act, within a period of four months from the date of production of the copy of the judgment by the petitioner.

Issues: The main issue was the implementation of the Shetty Commission Report recommendations for the employees of the District Courts and other Subordinate Courts, which were not covered by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts’ Employees (Pay, Allowances and other Conditions of Service) Act, 2005.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the State is bound to implement the recommendations of the Shetty Commission Report in respect of the matters not covered by the Schedule to the Act, and directed the respondents to do so within a specified time frame.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction to implement the recommendations of the Shetty Commission Report for the employees of the District Courts and other Subordinate Courts, in respect of the matters not covered by the Schedule to the Act, within a period of four months from the date of production of the copy of the judgment by the petitioner.

JUDGEMENT

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. “We are concerned in this Report with the service conditions of the unsung heroes who work overtime but remain unnoticed and unrecognized. They are the staff who form a critical and important mass of our administration of justice in District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto. When we refer to administration of justice, we think only of the judges of the Courts. The judge of a Court, no doubt, is indispensable to our notion of a Court. But, the judge alone cannot administer justice. The working of a Court does not depend only on the work of the Judicial Officer in taking evidence, hearing arguments and rendering judgment. These functions are necessarily to be supplemented by the staff of the Court. Their work extends to pre-trial, during trial and post-trial stages of a case. Without their contribution at all these stages, there cannot be prompt and satisfactory termination of any case.”

2. Extracted above are the opening paragraphs of the Preface in the report of the First National Judicial Pay Commission on improvement of service conditions of non-judicial staff in subordinate courts, popularly known as Shetty Commission report, named after its Chairman Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India. In this Case, we are concerned with the implementation qua the subordinate Courts, in particular the employees in subordinate Courts. The Commission took into consideration the following aspects: “ (i) that the Court Staff have too much work load; (ii) that they work overtime without any compensation; (iii) that there is disparity and inequality in terms of inter-alia job content: and (iv) that there is need to improve the service conditions and proper division in the administration.”

3. As far as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, the following are some of the general recommendations: “III. MEDICAL ALLOWANCE In Himachal Pradesh, no Medical Allowance is being paid to the employees. Reimbursement facility is available. The High Court has suggested adoption of open medical reimbursement facility. The State Government has stated that reimbursement of medical claim is admissible to all the State Government employees as well as the Court employees and as such there is no justification to grant extra payment. The Staff Association has suggested that in case the Commission recommends medical allowance, it should be on par with West Bengal and should be in addition to reimbursement facility. Having considered the above view and for reasons stated in Chapter-XV, we recommend payment of Medical Allowance of not less than Rs. 100/- p.m. in addition to reimbursement of hospitalization charges, if any, to all Court employees who are below the Clerical Cadres and also to Drivers. IV. SPECIAL ALLOWANCE TO STAFF WORKING IN RECORD ROOM/PROPERTY ROOM It is uniformly found that the Record Room and Property Room, generally in all Courts, do not have proper work place. These branches are housed in basement or cellar and/or at the rear end of the Court building where natural light and air are minimal, besides dust and dirt with awful smell. These places are generally not fit for human habitation, besides resulting into solitary confinement to officials. The High Court has agreed that the Record Room/Property Room should be well ventilated and duly fitted with exhaust fans. Keeping in view the nature of duties in the congested and dust driven files in such rooms, it has recommended grant of Special Allowance to the Record/Property Keeper.The State Government has observed that there is no provision for such payment to the Court staff. Similar is the position in respect of such staff working in Govt. Depts. The Staff Association has suggested payment of Rs. 500/- per month to Record Keeper. With due regard to the views of the High Court, and for reasons stated in Chapter-XVI, Special Allowance of Rs. 100/- per month is recommended to each of the staff working in the Record Room/Property













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top