Delegated judicial powers do not confer higher judicial status, and Article 236 cannot be expanded to mandate cadre upgradation.

A limited statutory delegation of appellate power under Section 39(3) of the Punjab Courts Act did not alter the essential rank of a Senior Subordinate Judge or make the post equivalent to a District Judge or Additional District Judge for salary purposes. The Court treated the deeming provision as confined to the delegated function and held that related service-rule powers did not make the offices co-extensive. It also held that Article 236(a) could not be expanded to include Senior Subordinate Judge within the constitutional category of District Judge, and judicial directions could not compel upgradation or creation of a higher judicial service post absent a shown constitutional violation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Senior Subordinate Judge, by reason of powers conferred under Section 39(3) of the Punjab Courts Act and the applicable service rules, could be treated as holding the status of a District Judge or Additional District Judge for the purpose of claiming higher pay. (ii) Whether Article 236(a) of the Constitution of India permitted judicial directions to upgrade and include the post of Senior Subordinate Judge in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.

Issue (i): Whether a Senior Subordinate Judge, by reason of powers conferred under Section 39(3) of the Punjab Courts Act and the applicable service rules, could be treated as holding the status of a District Judge or Additional District Judge for the purpose of claiming higher pay.

Analysis: The delegated appellate power under Section 39(3) was held to be a limited jurisdiction conferred for specified appeals and did not alter the essential character or rank of the office. The deeming provision operated only for the purpose for which the delegation was made and could not be extended to equate the post with a District Judge or Additional District Judge. The service rules conferring certain administrative or disciplinary powers also did not make the powers of the offices co-extensive. The Court applied the principle that a substitute forum or delegated function does not, by itself, confer the status of the forum or office whose function is temporarily or partially exercised.

Conclusion: The claim to be treated as a District Judge or Additional District Judge for salary purposes was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether Article 236(a) of the Constitution of India permitted judicial directions to upgrade and include the post of Senior Subordinate Judge in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.

Analysis: Article 236(a) expressly includes specified judicial designations, but it does not mention Senior Subordinate Judge. The inclusive definition could not be judicially expanded to read that post into the constitutional category of District Judge. The Court also held that while administrative authorities may choose to upgrade posts, the judiciary cannot compel the Government to alter its policy or create a new post in the higher judicial service in the absence of a constitutional violation. No arbitrariness or other constitutional infirmity was established on the facts.

Conclusion: No judicial direction could be issued to upgrade or include the post in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.

Final Conclusion: The challenged judgment was sustained, and the appellant obtained no relief on either the pay claim or the request for cadre upgradation.

Ratio Decidendi: A limited statutory delegation of appellate or administrative functions does not elevate the holder of the post to the status of the higher judicial office, and courts cannot compel the State to upgrade or create posts absent a demonstrated constitutional violation.

---