Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SANDEEP SHARMA, JJ.
Himachal Pradesh High Court, Non-Gazetted Employees/Official Employees Association – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Respondents
CWP No.534 of 2018
Decided on : 09-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 229 – H.P. Subordinate Courts’ Employees (Pay Allowance and other Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2005 – Himachal Pradesh Officers and Members of Staff (Recruitment, Condition of Service, Conduct and Appeal), Rules, 2003 – Rule 6 – Parity in nature and duties of employees - Comparing scales of pay - Instant petition has been filed for grant of substantive reliefs – Nature of duties discharged by employees of High Court is different and it cannot be compared with duties and responsibilities shouldered by employees in State Secretariat or other Departments of Government. [Para 85]
Finding of the Court: Court deem it appropriate to direct that this judgment be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice of this High Court to constitute a Committee consisting of at least two Hon’ble Judges of this High Court, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Principal Secretary, Law, to Government of Himachal Pradesh or any other person, Registrar General, Registrar (Vigilance) and Registrar (Judicial) of this High Court and two representatives of Petitioner-Association – Hon’ble Committee shall go into details with respect to grant of hike as per prayer clause of the petition keeping in view nature of duties and responsibilities discharged by staff working under various cadres in adjoining High Courts of Punjab and Haryana and Delhi before recommending the pay pattern as was done by Division Bench of Madras High Court case (supra). Since, Article 229 of Constitution of India contemplates framing of rules for salary, allowance, leave or pension etc., Hon’ble the Chief Justice may empower Hon’ble Committee to frame appropriate rules for aforesaid purpose for future.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
1(a). That the decision as taken in the meeting held on 24th July, 2019 which is Annexure P-19 to the Writ Petition may also very kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of law and justice.”
2. A single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in its decision rendered in CWP No. 15833 of 2009 titled as Hari Mohan Dixit and others vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others, decided on 10.02.2011 directed the Union of India to consider the recommendations made by three Judges’ Committee which had been accorded approval by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and especially keeping in view the guiding principles reiterated in Union of India vs. S.B. Vohra & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 150. It was pursuant to these directions that the Government of India eventually granted 20% hike in the pay scales (Grade Pay). The Government of India vide memorandum dated 27.02.2012 granted hike of 20% in the existing pay including Grade Pay to the employees specified in the memorandum and serving in Punjab and Haryana High Court with effect from 01.01.2006.
3. One of the Welfare Associations of the Himachal Pradesh High Court accordingly made a representation dated 11.04.2012 claiming therein the same and similar benefits on the basis of the Hari Mohan Dixit’s case (supra).
4. On receipt of such representation, the matter was directed to be placed before a Committee consisting of three Hon’ble Judges, who after taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances submitted a report that it was the prerogative of Hon’ble the Chief Justice to independently consider the matter and to make recommendations for grant of benefits to the employees of this High Court. The Hon’ble Chief Justice thereafter made the note “recommended” “Address the govt.” on 28.04.2012.
5. Accordingly, the Registrar General of this Court sent a communication to the Government requesting the Government to take up the matter with the Finance Department and issue the necessary notification bringing parity in the pay scales of the employees of this Court Registry with their counter-parts with the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
6. After the receipt of such communication, the Office of the Principal Secretary (Home) called upon the High Court to supply legible copy of the letter dated 27.02.2012 vide which 20% hike had been granted to the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court with effect from 01.01.2006. The same was duly supplied by this High Court and in addition thereto, another communication was sent by the High Court to the Principal Secretary (Home) requesting him to expedite the matter vide reminder dated 29.08.2012.
7. It is only then that for the first time the Department of Home vide communication dated 05.11.2012 sought a comprehensive proposal along with details of financial implications. The query of the Department of Home vide communication dated 05.11.2012 with regard to financial implications was duly attended to by the High Court by sending a communication dated 15/17th December, 2012. However, the Department
Article 229 (2) of Constitution of India nowhere prescribes or indicates any particular form in which rule should be framed nor does it prescribe any formality required to be gone through.
The Chief Justice's recommendations for pay scales under Article 229 must be approved by the state unless there are strong reasons for refusal, emphasizing the principle of equal pay for equal work.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a policy decision must be supported by proper reasoning and consideration of relevant material. The Court emphasized the need....
The Chief Justice has exclusive authority to set pay and service conditions for court employees under Article 229(2), and financial constraints cannot justify the refusal of approval for such determi....
Article 229 of the Constitution of India, which reads as Officers and servants and expenses of High Courts.
The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
It is well settled that normally the courts should not interfere with recommendations of an expert body, as it is exclusive domain of State to decide pay scales to be paid to a particular class/categ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
