Judgment :- 1. In the fifth decade, after the people of India, by adopting the Constitution, has declared it a Democratic Republic and recognised the Union and the State Judiciary as vital independent organs of the Union and the States, it is unfortunate that the Courts are required to determine disputes as to the conditions of services of the Judges of the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the Courts subordinate to the High Courts and the employees of such Courts. The Legislature has responded to the requirements of the Service Regulations of the High Court Judges by adopting the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, Act 28 of 1954, and thereafter by amendments, thereto, including the amendment Act, 38 of 1986, and introduced S. 22B to provide as follows: “Every Judge shall be entitled to a staff tar and one hundred and fifty litres of petrol every month or the actual consumption of petrol per month, whichever is less”. thus casting a statutory obligation on the State to provide a chauffeur driven car to the Judges, implicit in this being that the chauffeurs shall be available to the Judges for all travels undertaken by them and the car allotted for use as such befitting the class and status of the Judges of the High Courts and kept in such state of repair as is fit for use any time in keeping with the high status of a Judge of the High Court. 2. Petitioners herein are drivers working under the control of the third respondent, the Registrar, High Court, Madras, and are attached as chauffeurs to the cars provided to the Honble Judges of this Court. They were so appointed on the upgradation of their posts of Office Assistants in the year 1988. They, however, found that they were expected to attend to their work as a chauffeur driving the car provided to the Honble Judges at any time and whenever required by their Judges and they have no fixed hours of duty and they have to remain at work in the late nights, drive to various places, go to workshops and their residences after leaving the cars in the office or the workshop or the residence of the Honble Judges. They are required to report to duty at the residence of the Honble Judges even on holidays including public holidays for which they are not entitled to claim any compensatory leave, overtime, etc. There is no fixed time or work schedule as such and they are required to report to work on many occasions in the early mornings depending upon the needs of the Honble Judges and in the late evenings or nights to take the Honble Judges on such travels as they undertake either for official purposes or for private purposes. The only allowance paid to them is in a sum of Rs. 10/- on days when they have to work for more than nine hours but even this allowance is not paid for holidays, Saturdays and Sundays. They noticed, however, that the drivers allotted to the Honble Ministers and the State Guest Houses were given bus passes valid for all city routes to facilitate their reporting and return as and when they are required for duty. Since the petitioners are also employed in more or less similar conditions they represented to the third respondent, Registrar of the High Court, that they were discriminated by not providing the same facilities in lieu of allowance of valid bus passes for all city routes on all days. The third respondent as directed accordingly wrote to the State Government, vide, Letter No. 3664/A/91 Estt. I(A4) dated 4.10.1991, and again on 24.3.1992, which letters were replied by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Services I) Department on 28.7.1992. In his letter dated 28.7.1992, the Deputy Secretary stated that the Registrar, High Court, is classified as one of the Heads of Department in the Tamil Nadu Financial Code, and as per orders in G.O.Ms. No. 1015, Finance Department dated 27.10.1986, the drivers working in the Registry are eligible only for two way bus passes for the journey from the residence to the place where the vehicle is parked and back, like drivers attached to other Heads of Department. He also stated therein that the nature of the duty discharged by the drivers in the Secretariat is entirely different from that of the High Court and that- “The drivers under the establishment control of Public (MV) Department are attached to Ministers, Secretaries to Government, Government Whip and VVIPs and their work is onerous. They are expected to attend the work then and there and at short notice. They are expected to attend the work then and there and at short notice. They have to remain at work at late night also. Whereas in the case of drivers of the High Court, their work is very limited and their work cannot be compared with that of the Secretariat drivers.” The Registrar of the Court, as directed by the Honble the Chief Justice, wrote, once again vide, D.O.Lr. No. 3664/A/91 Estt-I dated 4.8.1992 informing the Government that since the Honble Judges of the High Court enjoyed the facilities and amenities in all aspects as provided to the Honble Ministers of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the drivers attached to the Honble Judges are treated on par with the drivers attached to the Honble Ministers and, therefore, they should also be provided with the same facilities as provided to the drivers attached to the Honble Ministers of the Government of Tamil Nadu. In this letter, the Registrar further stated, “I am further directed to state that the drivers attached to the Honble Judges are expected to attend to the work then and there and at short notice. Like the drivers attached to the Honble Ministers, the drivers attached to the Honble Judges also attend to office or residence of the Honble Judges and return to their residences and also go to the workshops or their residences after leaving the vehicles in office or in the workshop for repairs, etc. They have no fixed hours of duty. They have to rema in at work at late night also. They also report for duty at the residence of the Honble Judges even on holidays including public holidays for which they do not claim compensatory casual leave or honorarium or overtime allowance. Their work is onerous. In view of the above, I am directed to slate that the G.O. referred to in para 2 of the letter fifth cited above which is applicable to the drivers attached to the Heads of Dept. is not applicable to the drivers attached to the Honble Judges and the G.O. applicable to them is only G.O.Ms. No. 2642 Public (Motor Vehicles) Dept. dt. is not applicable to the drivers attached to the Honble Judges and the G.O. applicable to them is only G.O.Ms. No. 2642 Public (Motor Vehicles) Dept. dt. 28.12.1979 which enables the drivers attached to the Honble Ministers to obtain particular persons bus duty passes valid for all city routes and therefore the High Court fin ds every justification for sanction of bus passes valid for all city routes to all the drivers attached to the Honble Judges.” This time, the Secretary to the Government, Home (Courts) Department responded to the letter of the Court stating as follows in his communication dated 28.8.1992: “I am directed to state that in G.O.Ms. No. 1015 Finance (Pay Cell) dt. 27.10.1986 orders have been issued by the Govt. for providing two way bus pass for the journey from residence to the place where the vehicle is parked and back to the drivers attached to the Heads of Departments in Madras City. I may add that the Government examined the proposal of the High Court, sent with the letters cited and they agree that the drivers of cars attached to the High Court be issued the two way bus pass for the journey from their residence to the place where the vehicle is parked and back.” The expenditure on this account should be met from the contingencies of the High Court.” “Petitioners have challenged the said order in Letter No. 2(d)/No. 138 dated 28.8.1992 of the State Government and by the instant petition, sought for a writ of certiorari, calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent dated 28.8.1992 in Lr. No. 2(D)/No. 138 Home (Courts V) Department and to quash the said proceedings, and consequently to issue mandamus directing the first respondent to forthwith issue instructions to respondents 3 and 4 to issue to the petitioners, partic ular person all route city bus pass and treat the petitioners on par with drivers attached to the Honble Ministers in respect of various facilities and concessions, to enable them to discharge their functions without any let or hindrance, and to give compensation to them at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from January 1989 till the issue of all route city bus passes to them. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed their return with the affidavit of the Joint Secretary to Government (Courts) Home Department. 200/- per month from January 1989 till the issue of all route city bus passes to them. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed their return with the affidavit of the Joint Secretary to Government (Courts) Home Department. They have stated that considering the nature of work attached to the drivers working under Ministers, Government Whips, etc., the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 2742, Public (Motor Vehicles) Department dated 28.12.1979 accorded sanction for issue of particular person bus duty passes valid for all city routes to all the drivers of Public (Motor Vehicles) Department, drivers under Ministers, Government Whips, etc. at Government cost at the rates prescribed by the Pallavan Transport Corporation to enable them to attend to Office or residence of the Ministers, Government Whips, etc. and return to their residence and to go to workshop and return to their residence and also to attend office or to go to their residences after leaving the vehicles in Office or in the workshop for repairs, etc. They have further stated that this order is applicable only to the drivers working under the control of Public (Motor Vehicles) Department. They have also stated: Hence, the Tamil Nadu Government Departmental Drivers (Central) Association represented before the one man Committee constituted to go into the anomalies/grievances on the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission, for issue of all route bus pass to drivers. The Committee recommended for the issue of two way bus passes to the drivers attached to the Heads of Departments in Madras City. The Government accepted the recommendation of the Committee and issued orders in Government Order Ms. No. 1015, Finance (Pay Cell) dated 27.10.1986, for issue of two way bus pass to the drivers attached to the Heads of Departments in Madras City for their journey from their residence to the place where the vehicle is parked and back. In October, 1991, the Registrar, High Court, Madras sent proposals to Government for according sanction for issue of particular person bus duty passes valid for all city routes for all 37 drivers working in the Registry of High Court, Madras on the analogy of the orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 2742 Public (Motor Vehicles) Dept. dated 28.12.1979 to the drivers attached to Ministers/Government Whips etc. No. 2742 Public (Motor Vehicles) Dept. dated 28.12.1979 to the drivers attached to Ministers/Government Whips etc. working under the control of the Public (Motor Vehicles) Department.” In their return, they have further staled that the proposal of the Registrar, High Court, for issue of all route bus pass to all drivers in the High Court was examined by the Government and they considered that the nature of duty discharged by the drivers attached to the Ministers/Government Whips and those working in the Government Guest House is entirely different from that of the drivers of the High Court, and “In as much as the Ministers etc. are having jurisdiction all over the State, the duties and responsibilities of the drivers attached to them differ entirely from the drivers of the High Court. Furthermore, even though the Heads of Departments of the Government are also State touring officers, the Government have allowed in their order Ms. No. 1015, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 27.10.1986 only two way bus pass for the journey from the residence to the place where the vehicle is parked and back to the drivers residences. Even though, the drivers of the High Court stood on a different footing with the area of operation very much limited compared to the drivers of Ministers, in Letter 2(D) No. 138, Home, dated 28.8.1992, the Government agreed for issue of two-way bus passes to all car drivers attached to the High Court for their journey from the residence to the place where the vehicle is parked and back to alleviate their difficulties. It may kindly be seen from the foregoing position that the G overnment have acted in all fairness to all the drivers of the High Court. Art. 14 of the Constitution postulates that “all persons equally situated should be treated alike.” All the drivers of High Court have been treated alike and no discrimination whatsoever has been made amongst them. So much so, this contention of the petitioners need summary rejection in the eye of law.” 4. There is no return on behalf of the third respondent. The fourth respondent has come forward with a statement that it is a company wholly owned by the State Government and that passes are issued to the drivers attached to Public (Motor Vehicles) Dept., State Guest House Information Department, etc. after charging Rs. There is no return on behalf of the third respondent. The fourth respondent has come forward with a statement that it is a company wholly owned by the State Government and that passes are issued to the drivers attached to Public (Motor Vehicles) Dept., State Guest House Information Department, etc. after charging Rs. 250/- per pass well in advance from the concerned Department, and that passes are issued to freedom fighters, school children upto VIII Standard, disabled persons, etc., the cost of which is reimbursed by the Government to it. 5. The High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, has received a substantial amendment with effect from 1.11.1986 which has defined a ‘Judge’ to mean a Judge of a High Court including the Chief Justice, the Acting Chief Justice, an Additional Judge and an Acting Judge of the Court. S. 22 provides that every Judge shall receive such reasonable allowance to reimburse him for expenses incurred in travelling on duty within the territory of India and shall be afforded such reasonable facilities in co nnection with travelling as may, from time to time, be prescribed, has got a boost by the provision in S. 22B which has provided that every judge shall be entitled to a staff car and one hundred and fifty litres of petrol every month or the actual consumption of petrol per month, whichever is less. There is no contemplation in this Section that the staff car and 150 litres of petrol per month or the actual consumption of petrol whichever is less, is provided only for the Judges travel from his residence to the Court and back home after the Court hours. The entitlement is specific and unambiguous that every judge shall be having a staff car and he shall be entitled to consumption of a maximum of 150 litres of petrol each month, the consumption in excess however of 150 litres will be not at the cost of the State. 6. How reluctant, however, the Executive approach to this provision of a staff car has been, is reflected in a public interest litigation in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M.L. Puri v. The Punjab & Haryana High Court and others (AIR 1993 P & H 287). 6. How reluctant, however, the Executive approach to this provision of a staff car has been, is reflected in a public interest litigation in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M.L. Puri v. The Punjab & Haryana High Court and others (AIR 1993 P & H 287). The State Governments recalcitrance in not ensuring reliable and road-worthy cars to the Honble Judges gave rise to a petition by a practising Advocate in the said High Court and the Court in that context has examined the relevant provisions of law and observed:— “It is common knowledge that the High Court Judges have to visit District Headquarters at far off places in twin States of Punjab and Haryana for purposes of inspection of Courts and for holding special enquiries. In order to carry out this object of the Act, a staff car placed at the disposal of a Judge has to be reliable, roadworthy and free from the mechanical defect. It would defeat the purpose of the Act if the staff car placed at the disposal of the Judge is old and is not dependable. The High Court Judge cannot function effectively if the staff car placed at the disposal of a Judge is not dependable”. The Court has further observed: “If the Government does not place at the disposal of the High Court Judges, staff cars which are reliable and roadworthy, they would be surely failing in their duties as enjoined by the provisions of the Act” 7. One has to note that statement in the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 with anguish that we have still in the Government of the State of Tamil Nadu the idea that the Registrar of the High Court is like any head of a Government Department and that, while considering how the service conditions of the drivers of the High Court should be treated, their case is clubbed with the case of the drivers of the other Government Departments who are represented by the Tamil Nadu Government Departmental Drivers (Central) Association and who are subjected to a certain condition of service of their own. According to the counter-affidavit, the Government has found a good reason for giving duty passes to the drivers attached to the Public (Motor Vehicles) Department, Ministers, Government Whip, etc. because of the nature of the duty discharged by them. According to the return, “.the Ministers etc. According to the counter-affidavit, the Government has found a good reason for giving duty passes to the drivers attached to the Public (Motor Vehicles) Department, Ministers, Government Whip, etc. because of the nature of the duty discharged by them. According to the return, “.the Ministers etc. are having jurisdiction all over the State, the duties and responsibilities or the drivers attached to them differ entirely from the drivers of the High Court.” The respondents have, however, not staled what do they think of the duties of the drivers of the staff cars provided to the Honble Judges and what do they know about the jurisdiction of the Honble Judges of this court. It is difficult to believe that the Government of the State of Tamil Nadu is not aware of the nature of the jurisdiction, function and power of the Honble Judges of this court and the constitutional duties they perform. Ministers in the State of Tamil Nadu have jurisdiction over territories in the State, Honble Judges of this court have complete control of the administration of justice in the State of Tamil Nadu as well as the State of Pondicherry with areas scattered beyond the territories of the State of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. The Government of Tamil Nadu, which has got the responsibility under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act and the Constitution of India, to reimburse such costs as are reasonably incurred by the establishment of the High Court of Madras, cannot be unaware of the constitutional status of the Honble Judges of the Court and the fact that they have the administrative freedom under Art. 235 of the Constitution and their jurisdiction is not confined to the precincts of the High Court alone but extends to the entire State of Tamil Nadu and, besides the State of Tamil Nadu, to the entire territory of the State of Pondicherry. In their counter-affidavit, respondents 1 and 2 have said categorically that to enable the drivers attached to the Ministers to attend to office or residence of the Ministers and similarly to enable the drivers attached to the Government Whips and Officers to attend to office or residence, the Government has sanctioned for issue of particular person bus duty passes valid for all city routes and that the duty of the drivers of the High Court is entirely different, without, it seems, even examining the contents of the letter of the third respondent who conveyed the views and the administrative decision of the Honble the Chief Justice that the drivers attached to the Honble Judges performed duties on all days of the week, attended them at their residences, took the car to workshops and maintained the same in good order to facilitate their official and private travels as commanded by them. 8. It is really sad and that in the fifth decade of our Independent Democractic Polity, we are required to remind a State Government that Art. 229 of the Constitution of India has recognised in the Chief Justice of the Court or such other judge or officer of the Court, as the Chief Justice may direct, the authority to make appointments of officers and servants of a High Court, and subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State to decide and prescribe the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court, except that the Rules made thereunder, as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State. 9. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthi ( AIR 1976 S.C. 123 ), the Supreme Court has observed that ordinarily and generally, when approval of the Government is needed with respect to the salaries, allowances, etc. of the staff of the High Court, it should be accorded. Dealing with a similar provision under Art. 146(2) relating to salaries, allowances, etc. of the staff of the Supreme Court and the power of the Chief Justice of India, the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India ( AIR 1990 S.C. 334 ) has observed, “58. Dealing with a similar provision under Art. 146(2) relating to salaries, allowances, etc. of the staff of the Supreme Court and the power of the Chief Justice of India, the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India ( AIR 1990 S.C. 334 ) has observed, “58. In Gopalakrisliiians case ( AIR 1976 SC 123 ) (supra), relied on by the learned Attorney General, it has been observed that one should expect in the fitness of things and in view of the spirit of Art. 229 that ordinarily and generally the approval should be accorded. Although (he said observation relates to the provision of Art. 229(2), it also equally applies to the provision of Art. 146(2) relating to the grant of approval by the President of India. In this connection, we may also refer to a decision of the Court in Gurumurthy v. Accountant General, Assam & Nagaland , 1971 (Suppl) SCR 420 = AIR 1971 SC 1850 , which was also considered in Gopalakrishnans case (supra). In Gurumoorlhys case , this Court took the view that the unequivocal purpose and obvious intention of the framers of the Constitution in enacting Art. 229 is that in the matter of appointments of officers and servants of a High Court, it is the Chief Justice or his nominee who is to be the supreme authority and there can be no interference by the Executive except to the limited extent that is provided in that Article. The same observation will apply to the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India under Art. 146(2) of the Constitution.” 10. True, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not come within Art. 14 of the Constitution as an abstract doctrine but, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, if any classification is made relating to the pay scales and such classification is unreasonable and/or if unequal pay is based on no classification, then Art. 14 will at once be attracted and such classification should be set at naught and equal pay may be directed to be given for equal work. In the words of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India (AIR 1990 S.C. 349), “where unequal pay has brought about a discrimination within the meaning of Art. 14 of the Constitution, it will be a case of ‘equal pay for equal work’, as envisaged by Art. 14 of the Constitution. If the classification is proper and reasonable and has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved, the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ will not have any application even though the persons doing the same work are not getting the same pay. In short, so long as it is not a case of discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution, the abstract doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’, as envisaged by Art. 39(d) of the Constitution, has no manner of application, nor is it enforceable in view of Art. 37 of the Constitution.” The Supreme Court in this judgment also pointed out: “By virtue of Art. 74(1) of the Constitution, the President of India shall, in exercise of his functions, act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers. In other words, it is the particular Department in the Ministry that considers the question of approval under the Proviso to Art. 146(2) of the Constitution and whatever advice is given to the President of India in that regard, the President of India has to act in accordance with such advice. On the other hand, the Chief Justice of India has to apply his mind when he frames the rules under Art. 146(2) with the assistance of his officers. In such circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to hold that the delegation of the legislative function on the Chief Justice of India and also on the President of India relating to the salaries, allowances, leave and pensions of the officers and servants of the Supreme Court involve, by necessary implication, the application of mind. So, not only that the Chief Justice of India has to apply his mind to the framing of Rules, but also the Government has to apply its mind to the question of approval of the Rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions. So, not only that the Chief Justice of India has to apply his mind to the framing of Rules, but also the Government has to apply its mind to the question of approval of the Rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions. This condition should be fulfilled and should appear to have been so fulfilled from the records of both the Government and the Chief Justice of India. The application of mind will include exchange of thoughts and views between the Government and the Chief Justice of India and it is highly desirable that there should be a consensus between the two. The Rules framed by the Chief Justice of India should normally be accepted by the Government and the question of exchange of thoughts and views will arise only when the Government is not in a position to accept the Rules relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions.” The above passage in the judgment of the Supreme Court can easily be made applicable in view of the similar provisions by substituting Art. 74(1) by Art. 163(1) and Art. 146(2) by Art. 229(2) of the Constitution of India. 11. The trite law in principle is where unequal pay has brought about a discrimination within the meaning of Art. 14 of the Constitution, it will be a case of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and shall be applicable equally to any allowances which are granted to any section or class or employees on the basis of a classification Which has brought about a discrimination. Any action which is arbitrary and unreasonable and which touches the service conditions of an employee will attract Art. 14 of the Constitution t o protect all legitimate interests and rights of such persons who are not given the same benefits as otherwise have been given, since such act of granting unequal pay or allowance without a proper and reasonable basis and thus without any nexus to the object sought to be achieved, shall also attract Art. 21 of the Constitution. If such a discrimination is found extending to the limits of the rights guaranteed under Art. 23 of the Constitution of India, in the sense that persons employed for the same type of work in the two different establishments of the same employer are not given equal pay, and one employee in the privileged section is given more pay or allowance and the other who is not employed in such a privileged section is given less pay or allowance, it shall be a case of exploitation by the employer of the latter, attracting Art. 23 of the Constitution of India. 12. What has troubled my mind in the instant case, however, is the complete lack of understanding of the fact that the Chief Justice of the Court who is competent to decide as to the pay and allowances, directed the Registrar of the Court to inform the Government that chauffeurs (drivers) allotted to the Honble Judges were, like drivers attached to the Ministers, required to attend to office or residence of the Honble judges and return to their residence and also go to the workshop or their residence after leaving the vehicle in office or in the workshop for repairs, etc., and that they have no fixed hours of duty and they have to remain at work till late night and report for duty at the residence of the Honble judges even on holidays including public holidays for which they do not claim compensatory leave, honorarium or overtime, etc., and that their work is onerous, yet, the reply in the impugned letter is a one sentence consideration of the above stating that the Ministers etc. are having jurisdiction all over the State that the duties and responsibilities of the drivers attached to them differ entirely from the drivers of the High Court, and though the Heads of Departments of the Government are also State touring officers, the Government has allowed only two way bus pass for the journey from the residence to the place where the vehicle is parked and back to the drivers residences. The reasons not to extend the allowance of the all route bus passes to the petitioners are wholly untenable. The reasons not to extend the allowance of the all route bus passes to the petitioners are wholly untenable. It is clearly a mistake both of fact and of law in not recognising the jurisdiction of the Honble judges of this Court coextensive with the territory of the State, when in fact that Honble judges of this Court exercise jurisdiction not only in the State of Tamil Nadu but also in the State of Pondicherry, and in equating the drivers under the administrative control of the Registrar of this Court with the drivers of the Heads of Departments of the Government. 13. Appreciation of the facts and the law, particularly the Constitutional position of the Chief Justice of the Court under Art. 229 of the Constitution of India, leads to the irresistible conclusion that the Government of the State have failed to discharge their Constitutional obligation by not acknowledging the duties of the drivers of the cars attached to the judges of this Court and treating them as drivers under the Registrar of the Court and thus under any Head of the Department of the Government and, accordingly, discriminating them in the matter of grant of allowance in the shape of all route bus passes. This conclusion thus is enough for holding that the proceedings of the Government of the State in Letter No. 2(D)/138 Home (Courts V) Department dated 28.8.1992 is vitiated as the Government have failed to recognise, the pre-eminent position of the Chief Justice of the Court or his nominee under Art. 229 of the Constitution of India, who is the Supreme Authority, in the matter of grant of service benefits to the employees of the High Court, and there could be no interference by the Executive except to the limited extent that is provided in that Article. The proceedings being violative of Arts. 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India are, for the reasons, aforementioned, not sustainable and are fit to be quashed. 14. Quashing of the said proceedings, however, cannot remove the malady and the Governments recalcitrance in not granting the all route bus passes to the drivers working as chauffeurs of the cars allotted to the Honble Judges of this Court. Ordinarily, Courts are reluctant in issuing any mandamus when the issue of approval of any financial benefit to the employees of the High Court is involved. Ordinarily, Courts are reluctant in issuing any mandamus when the issue of approval of any financial benefit to the employees of the High Court is involved. It is nobodys case that the Chief Justice or his nominee Judge or officer has not applied his mind and only casually recommended or forwarded the demand of the petitioners to the Government. There is no basis whatsoever for any contention on the question of the recommendation of the Court to the Government, in favour of the grant of the aforementioned allowance to the petitioners and other drivers working as chauffeurs of the cars allotted to the Honble Judges of this Court. In the circumstances as observed by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Associations case (AIR 1990 S.C. 349) cited supra, it was highly desirable that the Government would have accepted the recommendation and granted to the petitioners and other drivers similarly situated the said allowance. The Government has not done that. There is no reason why the Court at this stage should think that there can be no consensus between the Chief Justice of the Court and the State Government and the State Government shall have any financial constraints in extending the above benefit to the petitioners and other drivers similarly placed. The reasons for which the Government did not accept the recommendation of the Court in favour of the petitioners, I have already found, are not germane to the object to be achieved and would amount to discrimination meted to the petitioners. There is thus good reason to make an exception in this case from the ordinary rule of leaving the matter for the further consideration to reach a consensus as to the allowance payable to the petitioners between the Chief Justice and the Government, and, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to extend to the petitioners herein and other drivers who are attached to the Honble Judges of this Court all such benefits that have been extended to the drivers attached to the Ministers, Government Whips, State Guest House, etc. Any order issued to extend the said benefit to the petitioners and other drivers similarly situated prospectively, however, will not meet the ends of justice. Any order issued to extend the said benefit to the petitioners and other drivers similarly situated prospectively, however, will not meet the ends of justice. Petitioners and other drivers have suffered, not for the reason of any recalcitrance on their part, but for the reason of the apathy and indifference of the Government of the State. I have already observed that it is difficult to accept that the Constitutional position of the judges of this Court and the extent of their administrative jurisdiction has not been in the knowledge of the State Government and that the State Government has not been knowing why the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 has been amended and S. 22B has been introduced by the Amendment Act 38 of 1986. It is indeed a universally accepted principle that no one can claim premium on his own recalcitrance and in the instant case, respondents 1 and 2 alone are found recalcitrant. A direction thus to respondents 1 and 2 to compensate the petitioners for the neglect they have suffered by granting to them monetary equivalents of the all-route bus pass with effect from January 1989, shall meet the ends of justice. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings in Letter No. 2(D)/No. 138 Home (Courts V) Department dated 28.8.1992 are quashed. Let a writ in the nature of certiorari accordingly issue. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue particular person bus duty passes to the petitioners and other drivers as indicated above within a fortnight from today. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus accordingly issue. Respondents 1 and 2 are also directeel to give monetary equivalent of the particular person bus duty passes from January 1989 until the date the passes are issued in accordance with the recommendation of the Court to the petitioners and other drivers similarly situated, the monetary equivalent being fixed at Rs. 200/- per month. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus accordingly issue. There will be no order as to costs.