Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Madras High Court Staff Association, a registered Association representing the employees of the High Court of various categories such as Section Officers, Assistant Section Officers, Assistants, Readers, Examiners, Copyists and Office Assistants, etc., seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing the letter of the first respondent in Ms.No.402, Home Department dated 13.3.1996 and to direct the first respondent to accord sanction for the creation of a separate House Building Advance Fund exclusively for the staff of the High Court. 2. On the basis of various administrative instructions issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, House Building Loans are advanced by the Government for various employees. As per the Government instructions, the respective District Collectors are empowered to sanction House Building Allowance to various Government employees other than the officers of All India Services, Heads of Departments and Officers and staff employed in the Secretariat. However, for the Heads of Departments, All India Services and Secretariat staff, separate lists are maintained and sanction is made on the basis of seniority in the list from a separate fund. The employees of the High Court are included in the list meant for the district. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that historically the employees of the High Court have been treated in par with the officers and staff of the Secretariat in service matters such as pay, allowances and other conditions of service. Keeping in view the above aspect, a representation was made on behalf of the petitioner Association to the second respondent, namely the Registrar of High Court for creation of a separate fund for House Building Allowance exclusively for the members of the staff of the High Court. Such representation was placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Court, who had recommended to the Government that a separate fund should be allotted exclusively for the staff of the High Court. As per the recommendation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the Registrar of the High Court addressed letter dated 29.11.1995 in ROC.No.87/95/Con./Estt.III wherein the recommendations of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice were conveyed and a request was made that a separate fund should be allotted for sanction of House Building Advance Fund to the employees of the High Court. As per the recommendation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the Registrar of the High Court addressed letter dated 29.11.1995 in ROC.No.87/95/Con./Estt.III wherein the recommendations of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice were conveyed and a request was made that a separate fund should be allotted for sanction of House Building Advance Fund to the employees of the High Court. The representation along with the recommendations were rejected by the Government by the impugned letter dated 13-3-1996. This is being challenged in this writ petition. 4. It is necessary to extract the entire order passed by the Government :- “ . . . I am directed to refer to the letter cited and to state that the Government have examined the proposal of the High Court, Madras for allotment of a separate fund exclusively for the staff members of the High Court for sanction of House Building Advance as in the case of staff members of Secretariat. The allotment of funds to various Departments is made in the Government Order in Districtwise as and when the allotment orders are issued. There is no difficulty in disbursing of house building loan through the Collector. The constitution of a separate fund exclusively for sanctioning loan to the staff of High Court is, therefore, considered not necessary.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the representation of the employees has been arbitrarily rejected without considering the recommendation of the Honourable the Chief Justice in its proper perspective. It has been further submitted that the employees of the High Court have always been treated at par with Secretariat staff and it is improper on the part of the Government to treat the High Court employees in a different manner in the matter relating to sanction of House Building Advance. It is also submitted that when the representation of the petitioner Association had been placed before the Honourable Chief Justice, suggestions have been accepted and a recommendation had been made by the Honourable Chief Justice and notwithstanding such recommendation, the first respondent without according proper attention, has rejected the recommendations by merely observing that such loan is made available through District Collector and there is no necessity to create a separate fund. In doing so, not only the Government has discriminated the High Court employees vis-a-vis Secretariat employees, but also has shown scant respect on the opinion expressed by the Honourable the Chief Justice in administrative side. 6. On behalf of the respondent No.1, a counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been indicated that there is no necessity to create a separate fund, as necessary loan is being advanced through the District Collector. 7. In the decision reported in 1993 (2) L.W. 159 (A. SUNDARAMURTHY AND 131 OTHERS vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, MADRAS-600 104 AND OTHERS) while considering the question of grant of pay at par with ASOs of the Secretariat service, it was observed by this Court : “ . . . I am of the view, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that in so far as the High Court is concerned, there cannot be any interference whatsoever by the Executive Government of the powers of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court by interfering with the independence of the Judiciary or with the service conditions of the employees of the High Court. . . .” It was further observed “ A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Mishra and Janarthanam, JJ., in Review Application Nos.72 and 73 of 1991 in Writ Appeal Nos.413 and 414 of 1991 dated 5.12.1991, on an interpretation of Article 229 of the Constitution, has taken the view that when the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court makes a recommendation regarding the pay and allowances of officers and servants of the High Court, unless there is a compelling and valid reason not to approve, the Government should approve the recommendation. This is the view of the Apex Court also. In the instant case, since the Hon’ble Chief Justice has made the recommendation and the recommendation is based on the benefit extended to similar category of employees in the Secretariat Service, who have always been treated on par, it would be grossly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution besides being in violation of Article 229 of the Constitution, if the recommendation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice is not accepted by the Government.” 8. In 1996 WLR 180 (Y. IMMANUVEL AND 32 OTHERS vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME SERVICES-I)DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI AND 2 OTHERS) a learned single Judge of this Court had occasion to deal with the scope of Article 229 of the Constitution. While considering the question of granting same scale of pay for the Junior Assistants on par with the Readers/Examiners post in the High Court, it was observed : “ . . . Article 229 of the Constitution vests in the High Court control over its staff in order to free the court from any interference from the Government in relation to the administration of the Court. The nature of the work performed by the officials in the court is best known to the court and not to the Government and when a recommendation is made by the Honourable the Chief Justice to the effect that the work performed by the Readers/Examiners employed in court is similar to that of the Junior Assistant in the Court, and the scale of pay of the two posts should be identical, it is not permissible for the Government to disregard the recommendation and persist in holding a contrary view. Such an attitude on the part of the government is wholly impermissible having regard to the object of Article 229. The failure on the part of the respondents to act in accordance with the recommendations made by the Honourable the Chief Justice, while recommendation has been reiterated, is in the circumstances of the case, violative of the petitioners’ rights under Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it has denied to them similar treatment in so far as their emoluments are concerned, on par with that of the Junior Assistants.” 9. Keeping in view the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, particularly regarding the scope and ambit of Article 229 of the Constitution and keeping in view the avowed intention of the framers of the Constitution regarding independence of Judiciary, it is evident that the respondent No.1 has treated the recommendations of the Honourable the Chief Justice with scant respect and has not given due weight to such recommendations. 10. A mere perusal of the order of the Government, which has been extracted earlier, clearly highlights the cavalier manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the Government. 10. A mere perusal of the order of the Government, which has been extracted earlier, clearly highlights the cavalier manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the Government. There is no doubt that historically the employees of the High Court are treated at par with the employees of the High Court albeit with much reluctance by the Government. It is not disputed that for the employees of the Secretariat, a separate fund has been established for sanction of loan. If the High Court employees are treated at par with Secretariat employees in other important aspects, there is no reason as to why they should not be treated so in the matter relating to advance of house building advance also. There is no reason to treat the employees of the High Court as any other employees of the District. It has to be remembered that the High Court even though physically situated within a particular district, is the highest judicial organ of the State. The question of advancement of loan has also some bearing in the question of administration of the High Court and to expect such applications should be forwarded by the High Court on each and every occasion to the District Collector would not definitely encourage the concept of independence of Judiciary. Moreover, as observed in the earlier decisions of this Court, when a matter is recommended by the Honourable the Chief Justice, such recommendation is definitely entitled to great weight and is not expected to be turned down except for cogent reasons. By merely observing that loans are advanced through the Collector and there is no necessity to create a separate fund, I do not think that enough consideration has been bestowed in the matter. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned letter dated 13.3.1996 is quashed and the respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the matter in its proper perspective. This may be done within a period of two months from the date of the communication of the order. 12. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to reflect on one important aspect. It is said that independence of judiciary is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. This may be done within a period of two months from the date of the communication of the order. 12. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to reflect on one important aspect. It is said that independence of judiciary is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. If the High Court is required to approach the executive for every small matter relating to its employees or even its Judges, like the matters relating to release of quota for railway tickets, reimbursement of medical bills and payment of telephone bills, etc., the independence of judiciary is likely to be eroded. It is hightime for the appropriate authorities to think of ensuring insulation of judiciary by making separate and appropriate arrangement for the judiciary in all aspects so that the judiciary would be free from the shackles of the executive in all such matters. 13. Subject to the direction and observation made, the writ application is allowed without any order as to costs.