[Article 229] State Can't Object To CJ's Recommendations On HC Staff Service Conditions Unless "Very Good Reasons" Exist: HP High Court Censures Govt

The observations were made by a bench comprising Justices Tarlok Singh Chouhan and Sandeep Sharma while hearing a writ petition filed by Himachal Pradesh High Court, Non-Gazetted Employees/Official Employees Association in terms of which they sought directions upon the state government to bring parity in the pay scales of employees of the Himachal Pradesh High Court registry with their counterparts in Punjab and Haryana High Court.

In their plea, the petitioner Association argued that the State of Himachal Pradesh right from its inception had been following the State of Punjab insofar as the pay scales, allowances and other amenities are concerned.

Since the Government of India granted a hike of 20% in the existing pay to the employees serving in Punjab and Haryana High Court with effect from 01.01.2006, so, a similar provision should also be made for the employees of the Himachal Pradesh High Court as well, they prayed.

The petitioner also brought to the notice of the bench that a representation on this subject had already been made to the High Court in 2012, which was considered and subsequently “recommended" to the State government by the High Court Chief Justice in the same year.

The petitioners further pleaded that after a long halt the State authorities in year 2017 rejected the proposal submitted by the High Court mainly on the ground that the employees of the High Court had already been granted enhanced pay scales (Pay-Band and Grade Pay) with effect from 01.10.2012 at par with the pay scales of other State Government employees. Subsequently a meeting was held in 2019, where the government clearly refused to accede to the recommendations made by the Chief Justice, the petitioners added.

Adjudicating upon the matter the division bench observed that Article 229 (3) of the Constitution of India contemplates that the administrative expenses of a High Court including salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon a Consolidated Fund of India with an objective to maintain the independence of the Judiciary.

Accordingly, when the Chief Justice, who is a very high dignitary of the State frames such rules, it should be looked upon with respect unless there are strong and cogent reasons for not approving, the court added.

Deliberating further on the matter the bench recorded that the Chief Secretary to the State Government of Himachal Pradesh ought to have placed the recommendations of the Chief Justice before the Governor of Himachal Pradesh for approval on the principle of comity rather than filtering it on lower levels.

Differentiating the nature of duties and responsibilities shouldered by the staff of the State Secretariat and the High Court are concerned, there is a vast difference.

"Unlike, the State Secretariat, the staff of the High Court have to strive hard to accomplish the given task....The duty hours of the staff of the High Court normally and invariably get stretched and extended to odd hours and they are more often than not required to work till late in the night," the court recorded.

Elaborating further the court added that most of the work assigned to the staff of the High Court is required to be accomplished and/or completed in a time-bound manner and cannot be delayed. Therefore, taking into account the peculiar nature of work expected out of the staff of the Judiciary, the court held that fixation of same scale of pay to the staff of the State Secretariat and the staff of the High Court is not warranted, the bench underscored.

Accordingly, the court set aside the decision of the state government whereby it refused to accede to the recommendations made by the High Court Chief Justice for a 20% hike in the existing pay scale of the high court employees. The bench further directed that the present judgment be placed before the Chief Justice to constitute a committee to assess the demands of the petitioner Association keeping in view the duties performed by the employees of the adjoining High Courts of Punjab and Haryana and Delhi before again recommending the demanded pay pattern.

Case Title: Himachal Pradesh Non Gazzetted Employees Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 5

Click Here To Read Order