Honble KUMAR, CJ.–The controversy raised in these appeals is regarding the pay-scales to be applicable to the various posts on the administrative side in the Rajasthan High Court. Different Associations of the High Court staff filed writ petitions in this Court seeking better pay-scales for the staff. The batch of writ petitions came to be decided by a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated, 14.3.1996. The learned Single Judge while observing that more onerous duties were being discharged by the staff working in the High Court and also taking note of the nature of functions performed by various categories of employees of the High Court, directed that the employees working in the Rajasthan High Court be given the same pay scales as were being given to the employees in the Delhi High Court. The State Govt. has filed these appeals against the said common judgment disposing of the various writ petitions. (2). The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that there is no reasons to have parity of pay-scales prevailing in the Delhi High Court. It is submitted that the eligibility conditions for various posts, the working conditions and other considerations like cost of living index etc. are different in the Delhi High Court and therefore, the same scales of pay can not be made applicable for the staff working in the Rajasthan High Court. Secondly, it was submitted that the scales of pay of various categories of employees working for the State Government did not justify a separate treatment in matter of pay scales to be applicable in case of the Rajasthan High Court employees. In other words, the stand of the appellants is that the pay-scales should be in consonance with the pay-scales of similar posts in the State Government. It was also argued that the financial position of the State did not permit such higher pay scales to be given to the High Court staff. (3). In response to these arguments, the stand of the employees Associations is that the staff serving with the various High Courts in India is discharging similar functions, duties and responsibilities in their respective cadres. The pay scales for the High Court staff should therefore be comparable to pay scales of staff in other High Courts. (3). In response to these arguments, the stand of the employees Associations is that the staff serving with the various High Courts in India is discharging similar functions, duties and responsibilities in their respective cadres. The pay scales for the High Court staff should therefore be comparable to pay scales of staff in other High Courts. There should be no comparison with pay scales prevalent in the State Government because the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the various posts in the Courts is quite different as compared to the similar level posts in the State Government. The High Court employees are required to maintain much higher standard of efficiency, secrecy and responsibility. They were required to put in much longer hours of work. To illustrate the point, it was submitted that whereas a Stenographer in the State Government may have to type out only a few letters in a day, a Stenographer working in the High Court and attached to a Judge has to take long dictations of judgments and type volumes of pages. The judgments are often typed as a draft for approval in the first instance and then finalised. The Private Secretaries, Personal Assistants and other administrative Officers have practically no working hours in the sense that they may be called upon to work till late in the night and start in the early morning. The Private Secretaries and Stenographers have to be in attendance at the residences of the respective Judges till late in the evening and early in the morning as per convenience of the concerned Judges. Same is the case about Class IV employees attached with the Judges and senior officers. The senior members of staff like the Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar have practically no working hours. Often they have to work till late in the evening or start early in the morning. They have to often attend meetings which continue till late hours. They are often called upon to work on Sundays and holidays. They have also to ensure that orders are carried out as per the time schedule fixed. (4). When these appeals had come up for hearing earlier, a Division Bench of this Court noted in its order dated, 23.4.1998 that the then Chief Justice had constituted an expert committee to report in the matter of pay-scales for each category of posts in the High Court. (4). When these appeals had come up for hearing earlier, a Division Bench of this Court noted in its order dated, 23.4.1998 that the then Chief Justice had constituted an expert committee to report in the matter of pay-scales for each category of posts in the High Court. However, that committee did not really take off and, therefore, no report was forthcoming. The Division Bench felt that a report of the expert committee was necessary to decide the appeals. With the consent of all the counsel appearing for the parties, a Committee consisting of a retired High Court Judge, the Finance Secretary to the State Government and the Law Secretary to the State Government was constituted. The Registrar (Admn.) of the Court was appointed as Member Secretary to the Committee. Mr. Justice R.S. Verma, a retired Judge of the Court, had been appointed as Chairman of the Committee with the consent of all the counsel. However, Justice Verma could not continue in view of his appointment elsewhere and, in his place, Justice V.K. Singhal, another retired Judge of this Court, was appointed as Chairman of the Committee. The Committee submitted its detailed report dated, 6.1.2001 to the Court which is placed on record of these appeals. Some of the parties including the appellant have filed their comments with respect to the report of the Committee. The Committee went into the entire back-ground of the matter. It considered the legal position as well as the pay-scales prevailing in various High Courts and in the State Government. The Committee noted that the expenditure on salaries of the Judicial Officers and staff is lowest in comparison to other countries. More than half of the amount of this expenditure is reimbursed by way of court-fee, stamp duty, fines, penalties, etc. It was further noted that the public had high expectations from the Judiciary. About working of the staff it was observed by the Committee : They work with much enthusiasm, sincerity and devotion to their duty giving much respect to the Judges and even work in extra hours after the court hours without any compensation. It was further noted that the public had high expectations from the Judiciary. About working of the staff it was observed by the Committee : They work with much enthusiasm, sincerity and devotion to their duty giving much respect to the Judges and even work in extra hours after the court hours without any compensation. The Committee further observed, The High Court staff has to work with secrecy, efficiency, accuracy and burden of work and actual working hours is also more than many service......The staff of Rajasthan High Court is performing the same duties as are being performed by the staff of other High Courts including Delhi High Court. The staff of Rajasthan High Court cannot be discounted in any manner and the efficiency, sincerity and devotion to the duty may be even better than the other services. In order to keep the staff in comfort and to live with dignity they should be properly paid so that their efficiency and devotion to duty is not affected. (5). As stated earlier, the Finance Secretary to the State Government and the Law Secretary to the State Government were members of the Committee. The above observations of the Committee, therefore, cannot be disputed or disowned by the State Government. In fact,some comments on the Committees report have been filed on behalf of the State Government. They do not contain any serious challenge to the report of the Committee. From the report of the Committee and the comments of the State Government thereon, it follows that the respondents are entitled to some relief. We fully agree with the Committee that the duties and functions discharged by the High Court staff are much more onerous as compared to the staff working with the State Government. There is much greater sense of responsibility prevailing in the High Court staff. They are courteous, well behaved and disciplined. When the High Court staff works so conscientiously and sincerely, it deserves a better deal. In terms of emoluments it cannot be relegated to scales applicable to the State Government employees. For its efficiency in work the High Court staff deserves some incentive in the shape of better pay scales. (6). The Committee noted the pay scales applicable in most of the High Courts in India as well as the scales on equated posts in the Secretariat. For its efficiency in work the High Court staff deserves some incentive in the shape of better pay scales. (6). The Committee noted the pay scales applicable in most of the High Courts in India as well as the scales on equated posts in the Secretariat. We do not wish to reproduce the pay scales for High Court staff prevalent in different High Courts in the country; they find place in the report of the Committee. It is to be seen from a comparative study of the pay scales in different High Courts that the pay scales of the staff in the Allahabad High Court, Delhi High Court, Bombay High Court, Calcutta High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Gujarat High Court are much better as compared to the pay scales of the staff of the Rajasthan High Court. There are some High Courts where the pay scales of the staff are lower as compared to the pay scales of the Rajasthan High Court. There is no dispute nor there can be any, that the staff working in the various High Courts discharges almost similar duties and functions. This fact is accepted by the Committee also. The Committee accepted the proposition that the main factors to be taken into consideration for determining the pay scales according to legally established principles are, `equal pay for equal work. But complete uniformity in pay scales for the staff in all the High Courts in the country is difficult to achieve. Local conditions vary from place to place. Prudence demands that while keeping in mind the principle of equal pay for equal work, efforts should be made to work out the most reasonable and appropriate pay structure for the staff of this Court in the given circumstances. (7). We would like to note at this stage that the appellants did not challenge the power of this Court to fix the pay scales for the staff of the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. (8). Before proceeding further, the stand of the respondents in this behalf be stated. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the Delhi High Court on the issue of grant of pay scales to the staff of the respective High Courts. (8). Before proceeding further, the stand of the respondents in this behalf be stated. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the Delhi High Court on the issue of grant of pay scales to the staff of the respective High Courts. It was submitted that accordingly, the staff of the Rajasthan High Court was entitled to same pay scales as are prevalent in the Delhi High Court and the Allahabad High Court. It was further submitted that the expert Committee having held that the staff of the High Court was entitled to a better deal and having accepted the principle of equal pay for equal work, failed to implement these principles, in as much as, it only recommended some special allowance for the various posts in the High Court and did not recommend upward revision of pay scales. The employees were, therefore, not satisfied with the recommendations of the expert Committee. Having raised the plea for upward revision of pay scales of the High Court employees, the learned counsel appearing for the various staff Associations ultimately felt satisfied with and agreed to a direction being given for granting one step higher pay scale to the employees of the High Court as against their existing pay scales. In view of the report of the expert Committee and the legal position as per the facts found on record, the learned Additional Advocate General also did not seriously contest the suggestion made on behalf of the respondents regarding grant of one step higher pay scale to the employees of the High Court. This has really lessened our burden to a great extent. (9). The Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 prescribe the strength of staff for various Gazetted and non-Gazetted posts. The cadre strength at present is as under : S. No. Name of Post Number of total post Number of posts on deputation from DTA GAZETTED OFFICERS + + + 1. Deputy Registrars 08 — 2. Senior Accounts Officer 01 01 3. Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer 33 — 4. Assistant Registrars 10 — 5. Senior Librarians 02 — 6. Superintendents 28 — 7. Assistant Accounts Officer 04 — 8. Senior Personal Assistant-cum-judgment Writer 10 — Total 96 01 S.No. Name of Post Number of total post Number of posts on deputation from DTA NON-GAZETTED POSTS 1. Sr. Senior Accounts Officer 01 01 3. Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer 33 — 4. Assistant Registrars 10 — 5. Senior Librarians 02 — 6. Superintendents 28 — 7. Assistant Accounts Officer 04 — 8. Senior Personal Assistant-cum-judgment Writer 10 — Total 96 01 S.No. Name of Post Number of total post Number of posts on deputation from DTA NON-GAZETTED POSTS 1. Sr. Court Master 01 — 2. Manager Gr. I 01 3. Translator (Sr. Scale) 03 — 4. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer 08 — 5. Accountants 04 01 6. Court Masters 34 — 7. Office Assistants 28 — 8. Translators (Ordinary Scale) 10 — 9. Stamp Reporters/Court Fee Examiners 17 — 10. Librarians 02 — 11. Stenographer Gr.II (English/Hindi) 45 — 12. Junior Accountants 11 09 13. Care Taker 03 — 14. Assistant Librarians 02 — 15. U.D.Cs 111 — 16. L.D.Cs/Enquiry Clerks/House Keeper Record Weeder. 317 — Total 597 10 TECHNICAL POSTS Computer Informers 02 — Data Entry Operators 06 — Cataloger-cum-Classifier 02 — Library Restorers (Referencer) 30 — Reference Assistants 02 — E.P.A.B.X. Operators 02 — Motor Mechanic-cum Drivers 04 — Generator Operator 01 — Drivers 43 — Book Binders 02 — Pump Drivers 02 — Carpenters 02 — Liftman 03 — Electricians 04 — Machineman 02 — Cooks 03 — Total 110 Nil * Note : One post of liftman kept in abeyance. S.No. Name of Post Number of total post Number of posts on deputation from DTA CLASS-IV SERVANTS 1. Jamadars 33 — 2. Library Boy 05 3. Daftary 03 — 4. Bastabardars 04 — 5. Waiters 04 — 6. Orderlies and Peons/Cycle Sawar/Watermen 207 — 7. Sweepers 07 — 8. Chowkidars 10 — 9. Gardeners 06 — Total 279 Nil Gazetted Officers 96 Non-Gazetted Staff 597 Technical Staff 110 Class IV Staff 279 Grand Total 1082 (10). We have accepted the recommendations of the committee that the High Court staff deserves better treatment in monetary terms as compared to the staff working for the State Government. In fact, comparison with the State Government staff is not called for because there is a vast difference in the nature and extent of work in the two set-ups. If comparison is needed, a comparison with the working of staff in other High Courts in the country is more in order. The nature of work in most High Courts in the country is more or less similar, though working conditions may vary. If comparison is needed, a comparison with the working of staff in other High Courts in the country is more in order. The nature of work in most High Courts in the country is more or less similar, though working conditions may vary. Pay scales for the High Court staff in various High Courts have been brought to our notice. The expert committee had noticed them. The expert committee expressed the opinion that High Court staff was discharging more onerous duties and opined that it deserved a better deal, but when it came to spelling out the relief, it fell short of providing appropriate relief. Broadly speaking, the committee has suggested giving some special pay or extra allowances for some of the posts. In no case improvement in pay scales has been recommended. We feel that in terms of relief, the committees recommendation fell short of what was desired. We accordingly make recommendations for better pay scales for the staff of the Rajasthan High Court. Our recommendations are contained in the Schedule annexed hereto. (11). The Schedule is to be treated as part of this judgment and we direct that the pay scales of the staff be revised as per the Schedule. (12). It will be seen from the Schedule that we have not made any recommendations for higher pay scales with respect to posts already in the pay scales of 12000-375-16500 (Deputy Registrar) and 10000-325-15200 (Assistant Registrar etc.) Our reasons for this are : (a) the pay scales are similar to those in other High Courts and nowhere else in the country they are higher; (b) the present pay scales are as per a recent revision in the pay scales of these posts by the State Government based on general revision of pay scales, a fact noted in the report of the committee. Further revision at this stage is not called for. We understand that to provide further relief to the Deputy Registrars, recommendation has been made to the State Government, to sanction posts of Joint Registrar. The post of Joint Registrar, when sanctioned, will provide a further channel of promotion to the Deputy Registrars. Let the matter of sanction of posts of Joint Registrars be vigorously pursued with the State Government. We understand that to provide further relief to the Deputy Registrars, recommendation has been made to the State Government, to sanction posts of Joint Registrar. The post of Joint Registrar, when sanctioned, will provide a further channel of promotion to the Deputy Registrars. Let the matter of sanction of posts of Joint Registrars be vigorously pursued with the State Government. We accept the reasons given by the committee for not suggesting further revision of pay scales in case of posts already carrying pay scale of Rs.12000-375-16500 and Rs.10000-325-15200. (13). With respect to the remaining posts on the cadre strength of the Rajasthan High Court we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice that the pay scales be stepped up by giving one step higher pay scale to the staff. This is what we have carried out in the Schedule. (14). From the Schedule it will be seen that the posts of Sr.Court Master and Court Master have been merged together. We accept the recommendation of the expert committee in this behalf. There is only one post of Senior Court Master, which has remained unfilled since long. There is no need to have a separate single post of Sr. Court Master. All the Court Masters attached with Honble Judges, including the Chief Justice perform similar functions. Therefore, all the Court Masters should fall in same pay scale. In most of the High Courts, the post of Court Master is equated with the post of Superintendent. The post of Court Master is a senior level post with greater responsibility and it should at least be at par with the post of Superintendent. Therefore, the Court Masters should be given the same pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500, as is being presently given to Superintendents. In terms of our recommendations as per this judg- ment the post of Court Master would now be in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500/-, as is the case with respect to other posts having the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500. (15). Further, we recommend that the posts of Superintendent, Court Master, Assistant Accounts Officer and Senior Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer, (presently in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 and now recommended pay scale Rs. 8000-275-13500), be in the channel of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar. (16). The Committee made certain recommendations in its report. (15). Further, we recommend that the posts of Superintendent, Court Master, Assistant Accounts Officer and Senior Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer, (presently in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 and now recommended pay scale Rs. 8000-275-13500), be in the channel of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar. (16). The Committee made certain recommendations in its report. It recommended special pay to be given to the officers holding the posts of Dy. Registrar, Assistant Registrar/Private Secretary/Court Officer- @ Rs. 525/- p.m. for Dy Registrar and Rs. 340/- p.m. to the rest. We would not like to disturb this recommendation. The same is accepted and ordered to be implemented. (17). Special pay recommended by the Committee for the other posts is not necessary in view of our recommendation for higher pay scale for those posts. However, recommendation of the Committee regarding special pay for staff attached with Honble Judges on the pattern of special pay to staff attached to Ministers in the State Government is accepted. They will be paid at following rates : 1. Steno/P.A./Sr. P.A. Rs. 280/- p.m. 2. Care takers posted at Chief Justices residence/ Guest House and other Guest Houses. Rs. 200/- p.m. 3. Drivers Rs. 150/- p.m. 4. Class IV including Cook Rs. 100/- p.m. (18). The committee made certain other recommendations. Out of these we approve the following and direct that these be implemented. 1. Incentive for working on Computer : The Lower Division Clerks and Upper Division Clerks who undertake computer training and pass DOIT test and work on computer should be given special allowance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month provided they actually operate the computer. 2. Photostat Operator Allowance : The Photostat Operator is a Class IV employee and is getting Rs. 25/- per month as special allowance. Looking to the nature of his duties and the volume of work he has to handle, we direct that he should get a special allowance of Rs. 100/- per month. 3. Washing Allowance : Uniform is provided to certain categories of staff like Peon, Driver, Daftari, Cycle Sawar, Machineman, Zamadar etc. The washing allowance provided to them to maintain the uniform is too meagre. The Committee recommended that it should be increased to Rs. 50/- per month. We feel that even Rs. 50/- per month as washing allowance is not enough. It should be at least Rs. 100/- per month. 4. The washing allowance provided to them to maintain the uniform is too meagre. The Committee recommended that it should be increased to Rs. 50/- per month. We feel that even Rs. 50/- per month as washing allowance is not enough. It should be at least Rs. 100/- per month. 4. Protocol Staff : The Protocol staff has to perform arduous duties. Their duty hours at times extend to odd hours at night. The Protocol staff deserves to be paid something extra by way of special pay in view of peculiar nature of their duties spreading to odd hours of the day. These payments will be as recommended by the committee and will be as follows: Dy. Registrar Rs. 600/- p.m. U.D.C. Rs. 300/- p.m. L.D.C. Rs. 200/- p.m. Driver Rs. 200/- p.m. Peon Rs. 200/- p.m. (19). Wherever amendment of any rules or any decisions is required for implementation of the directions and suggestions contained in this judgment, the Registrar General should initiate the process for carrying out the same immediately. (20). The recommendations contained in this judgment are to be given effect to from 1.04.2002. Necessary calculations should be worked out and effort be made to implement the judgment within three months. (21). The appeals are disposed of in terms of the above directions.