1975 (9) TMI 187 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court Orders Pay Scale Parity for Staff

The High Court directed the Government to align High Court staff pay scales with Secretariat staff, but the Government refused to approve. The Court ... Scope of the Chief Justice's power under Article 229 - approval of the Governor for rules relating to salaries, allowances and pensions - rule-making power to prescribe conditions of service of High Court officers and servants - writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing executive approval - charge on the Consolidated Fund of the StateScope of the Chief Justice's power under Article 229 - approval of the Governor for rules relating to salaries, allowances and pensions - writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing executive approval - Validity of directing the State Government by writ of mandamus to accord approval to the Chief Justice's recommendations equating High Court staff pay-scales with Secretariat scales. - HELD THAT: - Article 229(2) empowers the Chief Justice (or a delegate) to make rules prescribing the conditions of service of High Court officers and servants, but the proviso to clause (2) requires that rules insofar as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions shall require the approval of the Governor. That requirement arises from the financial implications, since administrative expenses including salaries are a charge upon the Consolidated Fund of the State. While ordinarily the Government should give due weight to the Chief Justice's recommendations, the Governor's approval is not a mere formality and the State may lawfully withhold approval for bona fide reasons. The mere fact that other States have equated High Court and Secretariat pay-scales, or that the Chief Justice recommended parity, does not render the Government's refusal ultra vires, mala fide or arbitrary such as to attract issuance of a mandamus under Article 226. Consequently the High Court was not justified in directing the Government to give effect to the Chief Justice's recommendations by writ of mandamus.The High Court's writ directing the State to accord approval to the Chief Justice's recommendations was set aside; the State may withhold approval without being automatically subject to mandamus unless the refusal is shown to be arbitrary or mala fide.Rule-making power to prescribe conditions of service of High Court officers and servants - interpretation of Rule 19(1) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1959 - approval of the Governor for rules relating to salaries, allowances and pensions - Whether Rule 19(1) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1959, empowers the Chief Justice to fix pay scales of High Court staff without the Governor's approval. - HELD THAT: - Rule 19(1) was relied upon to contend that the Chief Justice could regulate pay independently. The Court examined the rule and its proviso and found no language permitting fixation of salaries, allowances, leave or pensions free of the Governor's approval. The rule's reference to existing Government rules is to the rules themselves and not to pay schedules, and the first proviso to Rule 19(1) expressly preserves the Governor's authority with regard to salaries, allowances, leave and pensions. Thus Rule 19(1) cannot be read so as to circumvent the proviso to Article 229(2) which requires executive approval where financial burden is involved.Rule 19(1) does not authorise the Chief Justice to fix pay scales affecting salaries, allowances or pensions without the Governor's approval; the High Court's reliance on Rule 19(1) to that effect was misplaced.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the High Court's order directing the State Government to implement the Chief Justice's recommendations equating High Court staff pay with Secretariat scales is set aside. No order as to costs. Issues involved:Scope and power of Chief Justice u/s Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India, Equating pay scales of High Court staff with Secretariat staff, Approval of Governor for rules related to salaries, allowances, leave, or pensions.Summary:The appeal concerned the Chief Justice's power under Article 229(2) of the Constitution to align High Court staff pay scales with Secretariat staff. The High Court directed the Government to implement the Chief Justice's recommendations for pay scale parity. The dispute arose when the Government refused to approve the proposal, leading to a writ petition by High Court staff members. The High Court justified its decision based on the Chief Justice's authority and Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1959.The Court analyzed Article 229 provisions, emphasizing the need for Governor's approval for rules concerning salaries, allowances, leave, or pensions. It highlighted that while Chief Justices have autonomy in staff appointments and service conditions, financial aspects require government approval. The Court referenced past judgments to support the requirement of Governor's approval for financial matters related to High Court staff.Regarding Rule 19(1) of the 1959 Rules, the Court clarified that the Chief Justice's authority is subject to Governor's approval for financial aspects. Despite acknowledging the sentiment behind the High Court's decision, the Court upheld the necessity of Governor's approval for financial rule changes. The appeal was allowed, with a hope for reconsideration by the Government on pay scale parity between High Court and Secretariat staff in Andhra Pradesh.In conclusion, the Court emphasized the legal framework governing High Court staff salaries and the importance of Governor's approval for financial rule changes. The decision highlighted the balance between Chief Justice's authority and government oversight in financial matters concerning High Court staff.