JUDGMENT :

Dev Darshan Sud, J.

The petitioner, H.P. Non-gazetted Judicial Employees Welfare Association, challenges Annexure P-4, the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts Employees (Pay, Allowances and other conditions of service) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') assented to by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh on 7th February, 2006. In brief, the contention of the petitioner is that this Act is contrary to the recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Justice Shetty Commission). We need not reproduce the facts in detail as the report which is being monitored by the Supreme Court regularly by calling for affidavits in compliance from various States is not in dispute. The question for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it impinges on the basic structure of the Constitution by overruling the judgment/directions issued by the Supreme Court from time to time or whether the State is competent under its legislative function to pass the enactment by superseding the directions issued by the Supreme Court. It is urged by learned Advocate General that there can be no challenge to the Act as (a) the legality of the Act was subject-matter of consideration in previous proceedings in C.W.P. No. 4562 of 2009, tided H.P. Non-gazetted Judicial Employees Welfare Association v. State of H.P. and others, decided on 20th July, 2011, which this Court had dismissed; (b) it is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature to pass the Act to overrule the directions issued by the Supreme Court.

2. Prior to filing of the present writ petition, C.W.P. No. 4562 of 2009, titled H.P. Non-gazetted Judicial Employees Welfare Association v. State of H.P. and others, was instituted in this Court which was disposed of on 20th July, 2011. While deciding the writ petition, the Court inter alia holds:--

"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 tha