Back
1989 Supreme(Ori) 354
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.C. Mohapatra, R.C. Patnaik, JJ.
NARAYAN SAHOO AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 2376 of 1988
Decided On : 31-07-1989
A.S. Naidu and P. Mohanty, for the Appellant; R.K. Patra, Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondent
Denial of upgradation of posts to Senior Stenographers attached to Judges and Registrar of High Court was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Government's plea of economic ban was not a valid ground for denying the upgradation.
Headnote:
UPGRADATION OF POSTS - SENIOR STENOGRAPHERS - PERSONAL ASSISTANTS - ARTICLE 14 AND 16 - EQUALITY - ARBITRARINESS - ECONOMIC BAN - CHIEF MINISTER'S APPROVAL - HIGH POWER COMMITTEE - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - UPGRADATION OF POSTS - PARITY - EFFECTIVE DATE - COSTS - NO ORDER - WRIT APPLICATION ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
Senior Stenographers attached to Judges and Registrar of High Court sought upgradation of their posts to Personal Assistants, citing parity with Stenographers of various Officers and Heads of Departments who had already been granted the benefit. The Government initially agreed to the proposal but later turned it down due to economic ban. The High Court had recommended the upgradation, but the Government did not implement it.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the claim of the Senior Stenographers was just and deserving, and that denying them the benefit while granting it to others was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court also noted that the Government's plea of economic ban was not tenable as several other posts had been created and upgraded despite the ban.
Issues: 1. Whether the denial of upgradation of posts to Senior Stenographers attached to Judges and Registrar of High Court was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the Government's plea of economic ban was a valid ground for denying the upgradation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness, and an act that is arbitrary is violative of Article 14. In the present case, the denial of upgradation to Senior Stenographers while granting it to others in similar positions was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. 2. The Government's plea of economic ban was not tenable as several other posts had been created and upgraded despite the ban. The State cannot transgress the Constitution on any ground whatsoever, much less on the ground of financial stringency.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ application and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Government to upgrade the posts of Senior Stenographers attached to the Judges and Registrar of the High Court to that of Personal Assistants with all benefits as admissible under the law by way of parity with effect from 1-11-1986.
JUDGMENT :
R.C. Patnaik, J. - By and large, common man is not litigation minded, nor he is averse to litigation. Litigation is not his pursuit, his hobby sometimes, however, he inherits litigation and willy-nilly pursues it. Often, however, a litigation is thrust on him. The Petitioners belong to the last category. Why did they approach the portals of a court which a prudent man approaches as a last resort because of the time that is consumed in litigation and the financial drain it involves?
2. This is their tale.
They are senior Stenographer - Petitioners 1 to 10 and 12 are Senior Stenographers to the Judges and Petitioner No. 11 is Senior Stenographer to the Registrar. They have been imploring for years for the upgradation of their posts to that of personal Assistants. The Government had decreed the benefit years back to the Stenographers to the Secretaries, Special Secretaries, Addl. Secretaries, Heads of Departments. Collectors and the Advocate General. The High Court even has espoused their cause as reasonable, justified and deserving. Recommendation, as it did emanate from the High Court, the apex Court of the State, should normally have been accepted by the Executive. The proposal was however, scotched by an ingenious device.
3. The work of and the responsibilities entrusted to the Senior, Stenographers attached to the Judges and the Registrar of this Court are no less burden-some and exacting than those of their counterparts attached to the Secretaries, Additional Secretaries and Heads of Departments of the Government. The Senior Stenographers attached to the Judges and the Registrar even shoulder extra burden as part and parcel of judicial administration of the State. They attend the residential offices of the Judges and the Registrar on Sundays and holidays also. They have referred to the, nature of the work and responsibilities in Annexure-5 annexed to the writ application.
4. The posts of Stenographers attached to the Secretaries. Additional Secretaries and Special Secretaries were upgraded as personal. Assistants vide Home Department Order No. 60718 dated 18-12:1979. By decision of the Govt. as conveyed by letter No. 55252 dated 24-1-1981, Personal Assistants have been granted special pay. Reference is made to Annexures-l and 2. Vide Central Administration. Department Memo No. 1324 dated 21-5-1980 and No. 14246 dated 30-6-1983, Posts of Stenographers attached to various Heads of Department were upgraded as personal Assistants. Some of the Heads of Departments are Chief Engineer, Roads, Chief Engineer, Buildings, Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Chief Conservator of Forests, Director of Public Instruction, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Labour Commissioner and Director of Fisheries etc. The Petitioners have averred to they are also employees of the State, in the judicial wing and hoped and trusted that the Government would treat them justly and fairly and accord them the same privileges and rights as were granted, to their counterparts in the executive wing. Since the Constitution does not mandate differential treatment, they hoped that this aspect would not be overissued by, the Executive. When the Government failed in the discharge of its duty, they pleaded before the High Court, which having been convinced of legitimacy and justness of their, claim moved the Government by letter No. 2788 dated 29/31-1-1983 and by letter No. 661 dated 9-1-1984 recommending upgradation of the posts. By letter dated 11-2-1985. Government informed the Registrar that the proposal for upgrading the post was under active consideration of the Government. However, by letters dated 20-2-1986 and 29-4-1986, the Registrar was informed that due to the economic ban imposed by the Government the proposal to upgrade the posts of Senior Stenographers attached to the Hon'ble Judges and the Registrar of the Court was not acceptable. The objection raised by the Government was so unreal and untenable that the Petitione
