Statutory service rules and bar council resolution did not create automatic pay revision without fresh adoption

A writ petition was held maintainable where the claimed service benefit was traced to the statutory framework and the Bar Council's own resolution, so the objection on maintainability failed. On the merits, a resolution fixing the Secretary's pay by reference to the District Judge's scale did not create an automatic right to every later revision of that scale; under the governing rules, the Council retained power to fix remuneration from time to time, and any further revision required a fresh decision. The claim to automatic pay revision was therefore negatived, while a consensual monetary relief was ultimately secured for the employee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable to enforce the claimed monetary benefit; (ii) Whether Resolution No. 106/95 entitled the Secretary to automatic revision of pay scale whenever the District Judge's scale was revised.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable to enforce the claimed monetary benefit.

Analysis: The claim was founded on a resolution of the Bar Council said to confer a service benefit under the governing statutory framework. The challenge was therefore not to a purely private arrangement but to a claimed right traced to the statutory rules and the Council's own decision-making power. On that basis, the proceeding was held to be maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether Resolution No. 106/95 entitled the Secretary to automatic revision of pay scale whenever the District Judge's scale was revised.

Analysis: The service conditions of the Secretary were governed by the Advocates Act and the Bar Council Rules, under which the Bar Council retained the authority to determine salary and remuneration from time to time. A resolution adopting the District Judge's scale as the basis for fixation did not, by itself, amount to a continuing adoption of every later governmental revision. The phrase relied on in the resolution could not override the statutory position that any further revision required a fresh decision of the Bar Council. The subsequent conduct of the Council, including fixation of a different scale for the successor and the absence of any later resolution adopting the revised governmental scale, reinforced that the claimed automatic entitlement was not established.

Conclusion: The claimed entitlement to automatic revision was negatived.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court displaced the earlier view on entitlement, upheld the Council's rejection of the claim, and nevertheless secured a consensual monetary relief for the employee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing service rules confer power on the employer-body to fix remuneration from time to time, an earlier resolution adopting another post's scale does not, without a fresh adoption, bring subsequent revisions of that scale into automatic operation.

---