JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Babulal Sharma has filed this writ petition with a prayer for quashing of order dated 19.6.91 (Annexure-10) and for issue of a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Carpenter with effect from 17.1.87 as well as for payment of salary to him in the regular pay scale of that post. Alternative prayer made by him relates to payment of 100 rupees as additional allowance. 2. petitioner's case is that he was initially appointed in the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench on daily wages of Rs.11 /- with effect from 17.1.87. Order for his appointment was however issued by the Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, jaipur Bench, Jaipur on 4.2.87 appointing him for a period of 60 days. By order dated 3.4.87, term of his appointment was extended for another 60 days and the amount of wages was enhanced by Rs.20/- per day. By order dated 16.8.87, regular pay scale of Rs. 700- 850, ' enant for Class IV post, was given to him. The petitioner stated that since the date of his appointment he has continuously been working as Carpenter at Jaipur Bench of the High Court. He made representations for grant of salary in the pay scale of Carpenter. In support of his statement that he is working as a Carper ter, he has produced the certificates Annexures-3 and 4 issued respectively by the Store Keeper of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. He made representations for grant of salary as Carpenter /appointment as Carpenter. His application dated 15.1.90 was forwarded by the Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench to the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court along with letter dated 27.7.90. Claim of the petitioner was turned down, as would appear from letter dated 13.8.90 (Annexure-7) written by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court to the Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. On a further representation made by the petitioner, the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court conveyed to the Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench vide Annexure-10 dated 19.6.91 that the State Government had not agreed for creation of the post of Carpenter at Jaipur Bench and, therefore, it was not possible to consider the case of petitioner for appointment as Carpenter. Petitioner has pleaded that pay scale of the post of Carpenter was Rs. 850-1520 till 31.8.88. By Notification dated 23.9.89 it has been revised to Rs. 910-1530. Petitioner has pleaded that pay scale of the post of Carpenter was Rs. 850-1520 till 31.8.88. By Notification dated 23.9.89 it has been revised to Rs. 910-1530. Further case of the petitioner is that even though he is regularly discharging the duties as Carpenter, he is not being paid salary in the pay scale prescribed for the post of Carpenter. In that manner he has been denied the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work. 3. Respondent No. 1 has in its reply admitted the factum of appointment of the petitioner on daily wages and also of his appointment in the regular pay scale of Class IV post. It has then been stated that service of the petitioner is utilised sometimes for the work of Carpenter because he knows the work of Carpentry. The petitioner is required to work as Carpenter as and when any urgent work is to be done. Respondent No.1 has then stated that it had moved the State Government for creating the post of Carpenter at Jaipur Bench but the State Government has not agreed to the same and that the petitioner is not entitled to be promoted as Carpenter as he does not fulfil the conditions of eligibility for appointment as Carpenter. Respondent No. 1 has then stated that there is a need of permanent Carpenter for day to day affairs and a letter was written to the Government for creation of the post of Carpenter. Government has however not agreed with the proposal. Respondent No.2 has not filed any reply to the writ petition. It has, therefore, to be presumed that the respondent Government does not want to contest the facts narrated in the writ petition. 4. In his rejoinder the petitioner has stated that the averments made by respondent No.1 about utilisation of his service only to meet urgent /emergent requirements, is not correct. As a matter of fact, he has been working and doing all the functions and duties as Carpenter from the date of his appointment with effect from 17.1.87. He has pleaded that the duty chart prepared by the functionaries of the High Court would show that from the date of his appointment, he is working as Carpenter and he has been shown as Carpenter. The petitioner has controverted the statement of respondent No.1 that his service is utilised for distributing daily cause list. He has pleaded that the duty chart prepared by the functionaries of the High Court would show that from the date of his appointment, he is working as Carpenter and he has been shown as Carpenter. The petitioner has controverted the statement of respondent No.1 that his service is utilised for distributing daily cause list. Regarding the requirement of ITT certificate the petitioner has pleaded that such certificate is required only for appointment after 23.5.89. 5. During the course of hearing on 7.1.93. learned Dy. Govt. Advocate was asked to show the reasons as to why the Government has not approved recommendation of the High Court for creation of the post of Carpenter. After seeking instructions from the Government, the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has stated that the Government has not considered it proper to sanction creation of post of Carpenter. On 18.2.93 the Court directed the respondents to furnish some more information on the question of creation of posts and also on the nature of actual duties being performed by the petitioner. However, Neither of the respondents furnished the requisite information before the Court. On 16.4.93. arguments were treated as concluded and the order was reserved. When the matter was being dictated by the Court, it was felt that the Government should be directed to place before the Court details of posts of Carpenter created in the various department of Government and the norms prescribed for sanctioning the post of Carpenter. Therefore, the case was listed in the category of 'to be mentioned' on 20.8.93. On that day, direction was issued to the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate to place relevant information before the Court. On 16.9.93, when the matter was again listed before the Court, learned Additional Advocate General was present. He stated that he would seek appropriate directions from the Government. The case was once again listed before the Court on 5.10.93. On that day, learned Additional Advocate General stated that the matter relating to the creation of post of Carpenter and other posts can be considered by the Government in the Finance Department in the next meeting Budget Finalisation Committee which is going to take place in near future. The case was once again listed before the Court on 5.10.93. On that day, learned Additional Advocate General stated that the matter relating to the creation of post of Carpenter and other posts can be considered by the Government in the Finance Department in the next meeting Budget Finalisation Committee which is going to take place in near future. Learned Additional Advocate General was told that even though the High Court had written to the Government on two earlier occasions for creation of the post of Carpenter and other posts but the Finance Department had brushed aside those recommendations. Upon this learned Additional Advocate General stated that if the Government sanctions post of Carpenter for the High Court, there will be problem for other departments. These proceedings clearly show that so far as the Government is concerned, despite recommendations made by the High Court on more than one occasion , it has stubbornly refused to sanction the post of Carpenter. 6. While the matter was under consideration before the Court, the Government has issued letter dated 8.7.93 conveying the decision of Government in Finance Department. This letter of the Government reads as under:- HINDI MATTER 364099 7. The. question which requires determination in this writ Petition is as to whether the Government is justified in refusing to sanction the post of Carpenter despite the requirement of the said post both at the principal seat of the High Court as Jodhpur and Jaipur Bench and despite recommendations made by the High Court on more than one occasion. and whether the petitioner has a reight to be paid salary in the pay scale of the post of Carpenter on the ground that he has bee discharging the duties of Carpenter. 8. In regard to the nature of actual duties performed by the petitioner, it is to be noted that while the petitioner has made a categorical assertion that he has been regularly discharging the duties of Carpenter, and he has produced certificates Annexures-3 and 4 in support of this assertion, Respondent No.1 has made a bald and vague assertion that service of the petitioner is sometime utilised as Carpenter to meet with emergent need and this is done because the petitioner knows carpentry. Being employer of the petitioner, Respondent No.1 is in possession of the record relating to the actual work done by the petitioner and, therefore, it was for Respondent No.1 to have produced the record to show that petitioner's assertion to the effect that he has been continuously discharging the duties as a Carpenter is factually incorrect. It was for Respondent No.1 to have established that the petitioner is discharging duties other than that of a Carpenter. Respondent No.1 has not stated that the certificates Annexures-3 and 4 produced by the petitioner contain erroneous statement of fact regarding the nature of duties done by the petitioner. In view of the factual position which emerges from the pleadings, it is reasonable ,) hold that the petitioner has.been regularly working as Carpenter at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court and even though the petitioner has been discharging the duties of Carpenter, he is being paid salary as a Class IV employee. 9. Reason advanced by Respondent No.1 for not paying the petitioner salary of the post of Carpenter is only this that the State Government has not sanctioned the post of Carpenter. Averments made in paragraph 4 of the reply shows that the High Court has written to the State Government for creating the post of Carpenter but the Government did not agree. Para 5 of the reply also shows that need of permanent Carpenter has been recognised by the High Court itself and precisely for this reason the High Court has made recommendation for creation of the post of Carpenter. Contents of the letter dated 8.7.93 written by the Government clinches the issue so far as requirement of a Carpenter at the Principal Seat as well as Jaipur Bench of the High Court is concerned. Subject matter of the letter dated 8.7.93 dearly shows that the High Court has recommended for creation of additional posts and Hon'ble the Chief justice had written letter to Hon'ble the Governor on 17.4.93 for sanction of the posts. It is in the context of the letter written by Hon'ble the Chief justice that the Deputy Secretary to Government in Law Department has conveyed the decision of the Government (Finance Department) vide letter dated 8.7.93. 10. It is in the context of the letter written by Hon'ble the Chief justice that the Deputy Secretary to Government in Law Department has conveyed the decision of the Government (Finance Department) vide letter dated 8.7.93. 10. A perusal of the letter dated 8.7.93 shows that the Government in Finance Department has sanctioned the posts of Chowkidar, Gardner; Carpenter, Electrician, Book-binder, Lift-man and Typewriter Mechanic but at the same time it has imposed a condition that the work should be got done on contract basis. The language used in the letter dated 8.7.93 conveys a most unusual decision taken by the Government in as much as on the one hand it realises that there is a permanent need of Chowkidars, Gardners, Carpenters, Electricians, Book-binders, Lift-men and Typewriter Mechanics for the Principal Seat of the Court as well as Jaipur Bench, but at the same time the Government says that the High Court cannot appoint any person. Rather it can get the work done on contract basis. The creation of posts with a rider that the work should be got done on contract basis, is a contradiction in terms. If at all the work is to be got done on contract basis, there was absolutely no necessity of creating posts. I am constraint to observe that letter dated 8.7.93 depicts an unfortunate tendency of the officers sitting in the Finance Department who intentionally make attempts to over-ride the recommendations made by the High Court and tried to create obstacle in the working of the courts. 11. The Finance Department has simply forgotten that letter was written to Hon'ble the Governor by no one else than Hon'ble the Chief Justice who occupies a high constitutional office in the State. When Hon'ble the Chief justice had come to a conclusion that there was necessity of the various category of posts, the minimum expected from the Government was to have sanctioned these posts with grace without putting unwarranted conditions or riders. The mental attitude of Respondent No. 2 can appropriately be gauged from the fact that the learned Additional Advocate General chose to make a statement before the Court that if posts are sanctioned for High Court there will be a problem for other departments of the Government. The mental attitude of Respondent No. 2 can appropriately be gauged from the fact that the learned Additional Advocate General chose to make a statement before the Court that if posts are sanctioned for High Court there will be a problem for other departments of the Government. This statement of the learned Additional Advocate General shows that the Government is totally oblivious of the status of the High Court as a constitutional organ of the State. Any attempt on the part of Government to equate the High Court with a department of the Government will have to be ignored with utter contempt. It is regretfull that the Government is required to be reminded of the basic tenets of the Constitution and the constitutional frame-work in which our system works. All must remember that the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary, are three separate and independent wings of the State under the Constitution and each has got ear-marked field in which it has to discharge constitutional obligations -towards the people of the country. Any attempt on the part of the Executive to undermine the constitutional position of the High Court, will not be acceptable to the people. In fact this type of approach by one of the organs of the State compelled the Apex Court to make the following observations in All India Judges' Association & Others V. Union of India & Others (JT 1993 (4) SC 618) : "..We cannot however, help observing that the failure to realise the distinction between the judicial service and other services is at the bottom of the hostility displayed by the review petitioners to the directions given 'in the judgment. The judicial service is not service in the sense of 'employment'. The judges are not employees. As members of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They are holders of public offices in the same way as the members of the Council of Ministers and the members of the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such as ours, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitute the three pillars of the State, what is intended to be conveyed is that the three essential functions of the State are entrusted to the three organs of the State and each one of them in turn represents the authority of the State. However, those who exercise the state-power are the ministers, the legislators and the judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing their decisions. The council of ministers or the political executive is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of the political executive. Similarly, the legislators are different from the legislative staff. So also the Judges from the judicial staff. The parity is between e political executive, the legislators and the judges and not between. the Judges and the administrative executive. In some democracies like the U.S.A., members of some State judiciaries are elected as much as the members of the legislature and the heads of the Staff. The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State and its authority unlike the administrative executive or the members of the other services. The members of the other services, therefore, cannot be placed on par with the members of the judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally. This distinction between the Judges and the members of the other services has to be constantly kept in mind for yet another important reason. Judicial independence cannot be secured by making mere solemn proclamations about it. It has to be secured both in substance and in practice. It is trite to say that those who are in want cannot be free. Self-reliance is the foundation of independence. The society has a stake in ensuring the independence of the judiciary, and no price is too heavy to secure it. To keep the judges in want of the essential accoutrements and thus to impede them in the proper discharge of their duties, is to impair and whittle away justice itself." (underlining is mine) Although those observations have been made in the context of a case relating to the service conditions of the judicial officers throughout the country, I am clearly of the view that these observations will apply with equal rigour even in respect of the staff of the High Court and the Subordinate Judiciary. Employees of the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts constitute an integral and essential part of the mechanism envisaged in the Constitution for dispensation of justice to the people of the country. Proper conditions of service of members of the staff of the High Courts and the Subordinate Judiciary is sine qua non for an efficient judicial system. Employees of the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts constitute an integral and essential part of the mechanism envisaged in the Constitution for dispensation of justice to the people of the country. Proper conditions of service of members of the staff of the High Courts and the Subordinate Judiciary is sine qua non for an efficient judicial system. Failure of the Governement to provide appropriate conditions of service to the employees and the staff of the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts, is bound to have adverse affect on the working of the system as a whole. It is, therefore, high time that the Government realises that when recommendations are made by the High Court or for that reason by Hon'ble the Chief justice for creation of posts, revision of pay scales, payment of allowances etc., it should accept them without putting spokes. Such type of recommendations should be overlooked or rejected only in rarest of the rare cases and there should always be very weighty and cogent reasons for not accepting the recommendations of the High Court. The High Court must have full latitude in determining the requirement of the staff for itself as well as the Subordinate Judiciary. It need hardly be emphasised that it is the High Court alone which can appreciate the requirement of the Staff for itself and the Subordinate Courts. Those in the Secretariat do not have knowledge about the requirement of staff for the High Court and the Subordinate Courts and, therefore, it is highly inappropriate for them to interfere with it or brush aside the recommendations made by the High Court. So far as this case is concerned, it was very much expected of the Government to have taken corrective measures atleast after having received the notice of the petition. Instead of doing this, the Government has tried to create more complications by sanctioning the posts and at the sametime directing that the work should be got done on contract basis. In fact the last part of the decision has rendered the sanction of the posts as wholly meaningless. The casual and perfunctory approach of the Finance Department towards the recommendation of the High Court cannot at all be appreciated. 12. Framers of the Constitution deliberately gave full freedom to the HIgh Courts and particularly Hon'ble the Chief justice in the matter of appointment of officers and servants of the High Court. The casual and perfunctory approach of the Finance Department towards the recommendation of the High Court cannot at all be appreciated. 12. Framers of the Constitution deliberately gave full freedom to the HIgh Courts and particularly Hon'ble the Chief justice in the matter of appointment of officers and servants of the High Court. Conditions of service are also required to be laid down by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The only restriction is in the nature of proviso to Article 229(2) which says that the rules framed under Article 229(2) shall require approval of the Government of the State in so far as they relate to salaries, allowances leave or pensions. The administrative expenses of the High Court including salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of officers and servants of the Court, constitute a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the State. For the purpose of fuller appreciation of the contents of Article 229, the same is reproduced below: 229. Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts.-(1) Appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief justice of the Court or such other judge or officer of the Court as he may direct: Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a HIgh Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief justice to make rules for the purpose: Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Government of the State. (3) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of the Fund." 13. (3) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of the Fund." 13. Article 229 came up for interpretation by this Court in S.K. Ghosh v. State of Rajasthan & others ( 1984 RLR 966 ) , and a learned Single Judge of this Court directed issue of mandamus to the Government for amendment of the rules in order to bring about parity between the Private Secretaries to the Chief justice and the judges of the High Court vis.-a-vis Private Secretaries of Commissioners and the Secretaries of the State Government. Learned Single Judge took notice of the judgments of Delhi High Court in P.N. Chorra & ors. v. Union of India and others (1981 ILR (Delhi) 356) , and H.L. Vij v. Union of India (1984 (1) SLR 99) , where the Delhi High Court took the view that proposal of the Chief justice should ordinarily and generally be accepted by the State Government. This judgment of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench in Natwar Lal Thanvi v. State of Rajasthan & others ( 1988 (1) RLR 932 ) . The Division Bench of the High Court reiterated the view that appropriate mandamus can be issued to the Government in such like matters. It is given out that the decision of Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court and their Lordships of the Supreme Court have rejected such challenge. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to sanction pay scale of all the posts enumerated in letter dated 8.7.93. The pay scales should become effective from 8.7.93. The petitioner should be given the pay scale of the post of Carpenter with effect from 8.7.93. He shall be paid arrears within a period of four months. It will also be appropriate that persons holding similar posts are likewise paid salary in the regular pay scales so that they may not be compelled to file similar writ petitions in the High Court. Costs made easy.Petition allowed *******