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

2009 Supreme(All) 2368

[2009(5) ADJ 277]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : TARUN AGARWALA, J.
CLASS IV EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19454 of 2007, decided on 27th May, 2009)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Shashi Nandan and Namit Srivastava for the Petitioners; Zafar Naiyar, Addl. A.G. for State Government; Yashwant Verma on behalf of High Court.

Headnote:(A) Pay scale—Fixation and enhancement of—Claimed by petitioners Class IV employees of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad—Recommendation of Chief Justice for enhancement made under Article 229(2) of Constitution—Petitioner (Class IV Employees Union of Allahabad High Court) have prayed for quashing order dated 28.2.2007, passed by Principal Secretary (Nyay) whereby recommendation of Chief Justice for that enhancement, has been refused—Petitioners have also prayed for quashing resolution, dated 29.7.2006 made by High Powered Committee, comprising officer of High Court and Officers of State Government, which was constituted to sort out differences with regard to proposed enhancement of pay-scale—They also prayed to direct State Government to implement recommendation of Chief Justice with regard to fixation of pay-scale—In the light of various judgments of Supreme Court, it is clear that Rules framed by Chief Justice with regard to conditions of service of employees and officers of High Court, is final and conclusive, except with regard to salaries, allowances, leave or pension, which require approval of Governor, and reasons for requiring such approval, is involvement of financial liability of Government—Supreme Court further went on to say that if approval cannot be granted, Governor could not straightway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be an exchange of thoughts between State Government and Chief Justice of High Court—Moreover, stand taken by State Government is contradictory—Therefore, order of Principal Secretary, dated 28.2.2007, cannot be sustained and quashed—Also, no steps whatsoever was taken by State Government to arrive at a consensus, with regard to Rules relating to salaries, etc.—A mandamus issued to State Government to place Draft Rules, framed by Chief Justice under Article 229 for approval before Governor—This exercise is required to be carried out by State Government as early as possible. [Constituiton of India—Article 229(2)]. [Paras 30, 31, 32 to 42]

       (B) Equal pay for equal work—Principles of—Postulates scientific determination of principles of fair comparison—Comparison is made from work performed by employee and not by designation—Therefore, comparison by designation is misleading. [Para 38]

       

JUDGMENT

Honble Tarun Agarwala, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Principal Secretary (Nyay) whereby the recommendation of the Chief Justice for the enhancement of the pay scale of Class-IV employees of the High Court, made under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India, has been refused. The petitioners have also prayed for the quashing of the resolution dated 29.7.2006 made by a High Powered Committee comprising of the officers of the High Court and officers of the State Government, which was constituted to sort out the differences with regard to the proposed enhancement of the pay scale. The petitioners have also prayed that a mandamus be issued to the State Government to implement the recommendation of the Chief Justice with regard to the fixation of the pay scale.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner is an Association of the Class-IV employees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and had filed a writ petition No. 15211 of 1997 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the State Government to grant the pay scale of Rs. 975-1600 to Class-IV employees w.e.f. 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits and also the scale of Rs. 1000-1750 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The contention raised in the said writ petition for granting a higher pay scale was that similarly situated persons were receiving a higher pay scale in the Delhi High Court. The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment dated 6.2.1998. The operative portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge is quoted herein :

“For the reasons stated above, present writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to pay salary in the pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 to all those class-IV employees who are presently in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 and the salary of Rs. 1000-1750 to all such class IV employees who are presently in the pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 without affecting, in any manner, the allowances which they are presently getting. The revised pay scales shall be made available to the class-IV employees of this Court with effect from 1st July, 1994 (1.7.1994). The petitioners shall be paid the salary in the revised scale of pay, as said above, for the month of February payable on 1st March, 1998. So far as arrears part is concerned (w.e.f. 1.7.1994 to January, 1998 payable in February, 1998), the same shall be payable only after issuance of Government order in the light of directions contained in this judgment.”

3. Aggrieved, by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the State Government preferred an intra Court appeal, being Special Appeal No. 200 of 1998, which was allowed by a judgment dated 5.11.2003 and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The Division Bench held that it was open to the Chief Justice to take a decision with regard to grant of a higher pay scale.

4. Apart from Class-IV employees of the High Court, the Section Officers, Bench Secretaries and the Private Secretaries were also agitating for a higher pay scale. Several writ petitions of Section Officers, Private Secretaries, Bench Secretaries and Assistant Registrars were allowed by the High Court by various judgments dated 29.7.1998, 22.11.1999, 16.11.2000 and 20.5.2003. Against these judgments, the State Government filed a Special Leave Petition which was allowed by the Supreme Court by a judgment dated 27.9.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 1980 of 2000, State of U.P. v. Section Officer Brotherhood and another. The Supreme Court, while setting aside the judgments of the High Court directed as under :

“We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. However, this order shall be subject to the rules framed by the Chief Justice in the case of the Private Secretaries of the High Court. It will, however be open to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to frame appropriate rule































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top