Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 226 (ALL)

Nishith Verma v. State of U. P

1988-02-26

B.N.SAPRU, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body1988
JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru and Ravi S. Dhavan, JJ. - The issue in the present petition is parity of higher grade scale of pay and special pay denied to the employees of the establishment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and its Bench at Lucknow. In fact, this is not a matter which should have been made an issue at the Bar of the High Court as it is essentially one of administration. 2. Equality and parity of pay as the State of Utter Pradesh has granted to the employees of the Secretariat at Lucknow is the issue raised by the petitioners and all employees of the High Court. A reading of the writ petition, to which a counter affidavit has not been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh or the Registrar, High Court, conveys to the Court an impression that unless one seeks equality of employments and service conditions, given an occasion the State Government, would deny the standardised pay packet to all the employees in various establishments of the State Government. In the petition a history of systematic denial of parity of pay to the employees of the High Court in contrast to those of the Secretariat has been set on record. Time after time the employees of the High Court had to raise a demand to seek equality of pay and allowance with their counter parts at the Secretariat and it is only when the grievance on this discrimination was voiced, that the principles of equality of pay was accepted twenty years ago. In brief, the petitioners set on record that it took deliberations through Commissions and parleys with the State Government and succeeding Chief Justices that pay and allowances of the employees of the High Court must be at par with those of Secretariat. 3. It is, as if, as a gesture of grace that the State Government accepted the demand of the employees of the High Court to grant them parity of pay scales and other allowances with the corresponding employees of the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat. This principle was settled between the State Government and the High Court two decades ago when apparently the State Government accepted the demand of the employees of the High Court and issued a Government Order No. 302/Seven - Ka - 1 - 263/65 - Nyaya - Ka - 1/Vibhag dated 20 March, 1968. This principle was settled between the State Government and the High Court two decades ago when apparently the State Government accepted the demand of the employees of the High Court and issued a Government Order No. 302/Seven - Ka - 1 - 263/65 - Nyaya - Ka - 1/Vibhag dated 20 March, 1968. Thus, the issue that the employees of the High Court would receive the same pay and emoluments and allowances as their counter - parts at the Secretariat ceased to be an issue. Thereafter, the employees of the High Court were at peace that parity having been brought about between them, the irritant of discrimination in public employment, had ceased. 4. The principle of parity of pay, in reference to the context, was short lived. 5. On 26 September, 1987 the State Government issued a Government Order bearing No. 5948/20 - E - 1 - 513/87 dated 26 December, 1987, Annexure T to the writ petition, announcing increase in pay scales amongst certain rank of the personnel at the Secretariat. Within a fortnight came another Government Order bearing No. 6089/20 - E - 1 - 513/87 dated 6 October, 1987, Annexure 2' to the writ petition, which announced a special allowance of Rs. 30/ - per month as Secretariat allowance to certain employees. This allowances was made payable retrospectively from December, 1985. This was followed by yet another Government Order, after one month, bearing No. 6912/20 - E - 1 - 513/87 dated 16 November, 1987, Annexure 3' to the writ petition, declaring that the pay scale which had hitherto been increased and revised on 26 September, 1987 will be payable retrospectively from 1 December, 1985. The discrimination between the State Secretariat employees and those of the High Court, was in uttar disregard of the principles settled by the Government in 1968 that the employees of the High Court would be at par with those of the Secretariat. 6. The discrimination is hostile and apparent and in violation to the guarantee given to an employee of the State under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. No explanation is forthcoming from the learned Standing Counsel of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Standing Counsel expressed helplessness to assist the Court for want of any instruction from the Government either by a policy statement or a reply to the petition by a counter affidavit. No explanation is forthcoming from the learned Standing Counsel of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Standing Counsel expressed helplessness to assist the Court for want of any instruction from the Government either by a policy statement or a reply to the petition by a counter affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel made a formal statement at the Bar that the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Allahabad, has been seeking instructions from the Judicial Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow by letters dated 27 November, 1987, 12 January, 1988 and 8 February, 1988, but without any response. This Court inquired from the Registrar, High Court, if he was in a position to appraise the Court, in reference to the context, on the issue raised in the writ petition. The Registrar, High Court, fairly submits that he is not in a, position, to make any statement of policy as the purse which would grant parity to the High Court employee is with the State Government. Both the learned Standing Counsel and the Registrar, High Court, submitted that the Court may proceed to give its decision on merits. 7. It appears that the State Government is abdicating the initiative to resolve the issue of parity of pay and allowance between the employees of the High Court and the Secretariat, a principle disturbed last year between September and November, 1987. It is a matter which can be easily resolved by the State Government, but having granted an increase in pay and allowances to the staff of the Secretariat it would not like to take the responsibility for the financial implications. The State Government would move upon an order of the High Court and then justify the situation with an explanation that the High Court ordered it so. This is a said State of affairs that the State Government, given a situation like one before the Court, would stand aloof silently upon a charge of discrimination in blatently violating the Constitution which guarantees equality of service conditions to employees in the same class. 8. This Court does not have the power to deny the employees of the Secretariat, who has received a largessee at the hands of the State Government, as this would be inappropriate. This Court is not concerned with the reasons which occasioned this generosity. 8. This Court does not have the power to deny the employees of the Secretariat, who has received a largessee at the hands of the State Government, as this would be inappropriate. This Court is not concerned with the reasons which occasioned this generosity. But, one the State Government disturbed the principles of parity of pay and granted one set of employees more than what the others receive, the equality clause under the Constitution is disturbed. The equality must be restored. It is on record that the principle of parity was accepted twenty years ago. There is no occasion why it should be disturbed and not continued. 9. This is not the first time that this Court has had to restore parity of pay and allowances to the employees of the High Court, when denied benefits otherwise available to the staff of the Secretariat. One such occasion arose when the matter was decided by a common judgment, applicable to more than one writ petition, in the matter of writ petition No. 643 of 1983 : J.P. Upadhaya, Personal Assistant, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow and 14 others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another. The judgment was delivered by the Bench of the Hon'ble S.Saghir Ahmad, J. and the Hon'ble Kamleshwar Nath, J., on 31.3.1986. The other writ petition was decided recently. This was Writ Petition No. 2519 of 1987; Bechey Lal and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, decided by a bench comprising of the Hon'ble S. Saghir Ahmad, J. and the Hon'ble D. S. Bajpai, J. The matter in the latter petition related to allowances granted to bilingual Stenographers at the Secretariat. Thus, this is not a matter of predecence but an unhealthy aspect of administration in granting benefits to one class of employees and keeping these benefits away from another category; both personnel of the same State Government. 10. The discrimination is apparent and leaves this Court with no choice except to restore the parity between the employees of the High Court and their counter parts at the Secretariat in keeping with the spirit and principle of the order of the State Government of 20 March, 1968. 11. 10. The discrimination is apparent and leaves this Court with no choice except to restore the parity between the employees of the High Court and their counter parts at the Secretariat in keeping with the spirit and principle of the order of the State Government of 20 March, 1968. 11. Thus, this Court hereby issue a writ of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh, the writ to be executed through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, State of Utter Pradesh, Lucknow, respondent No.l that the parity and similarity in pay and allowance be delivered to the petitioners and the class of cadre to which they belong consequent upon the Government Orders dated 26 September, 1987,6 October, 1987 and 16 November, 1987, aforesaid, in the same manner and style as stipulated in the said Government Orders. This Court further directs the respondents No. 1 and 2 by a writ of mandamus that parity of pay and allowance as are prescribed in the aforesaid three Government orders be made available to the employees of the High Court, in reference to the context, forthwith so that the financial benefit are made available to the employees along with their salary payable in April, 1988, and whatever is to be credited into the Provident Fund or National Savings Certificate or paid in cash, as the case may be, is done before mid April, 1988. 12. This Court further hopes that an issue like this would never be permitted to be raised by the State Government so that the employees who are not in Secretariat and are otherwise at par with such employees further get a feeling that as they are not part of the Secretariat they would be considered as second category State employees. 13. The Petition is thus, allowed with costs.