JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Ms. Sobhna, learned GA appearing for the respondents. The fact of this case itself shows clearly that the State Government vide Office Memorandum being No. 1/2/2009-MIS (MGEL) Imphal 25.09.2009 had meted out discriminatory treatment to the members of the Manipur Judicial Service amongst equals, by denying the benefits enjoyed by members of other organized services under the said Memorandum dated 25.09.2009; rather, members of the Manipur Judicial Service are subjected to humiliation by repeatedly subjecting them to the MGEL (CPIS) formalities for the purpose of drawing salaries after appointment, transfer and posting, promotion etc. 2. This Court, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, is opening this judgment with the above unhappy words. 3. The members of the Manipur Judicial Service stoop low in seeking reliefs in the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents to include the Manipur Judicial Service (MJS) amongst other organized services enumerated in the part-I of the said Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009; or in other words, for a direction to extend the benefits under the said O.M. dated 25.09.2009 as extended to the organized services enumerated in the said Memorandum to the Manipur Judicial Service (MJS). 4. For deciding if the relief sought for in the present writ petition would be entitled to the members of the Manipur Judicial Service, it would be more beneficial to have a glance to the contents of the said Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009; and, accordingly, O.M. dated 25.09.2009 (Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition) is quoted below:- GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT (BUDGET SECTION) OFFICE MEMORANDUM Imphal, the 25th September, 2009 No. 1/2/2009-MIS (MGEL): The matter regarding payment of salaries of all organized services viz. All India Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), Indian Forest Service (IFS), Manipur Civil Service (MCS), Manipur Police Service (Jr. MCS) and Manipur Finance Service (MFS); without necessary updation of MGEL (CPIS) Certificate following transfer and posting and promotion, has been under the consideration of the State Government for quite sometime. All India Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), Indian Forest Service (IFS), Manipur Civil Service (MCS), Manipur Police Service (Jr. MCS) and Manipur Finance Service (MFS); without necessary updation of MGEL (CPIS) Certificate following transfer and posting and promotion, has been under the consideration of the State Government for quite sometime. Since the incumbent officers of these organized services are appointed through duly constituted Union Public Service Commission and Manipur Public Service Commission under the appropriate statutory Rules, it is assumed that the service particulars of the incumbent officers including their character and antecedents have been verified properly at the time of their recruitment. As such there shall be no question of excess or irregular appointment in these organized services, as long as the incumbent officers have a unique Employment Identification Number (EIN). as assigned by the Finance Department through NIC, Manipur, Imphal. 2. Having considered the difficulties faced by these Officers due to non-release of salaries on account of failure to update MGEL (CPIS) Certificate in time following transfer and posting and promotion, the State Government is of the view that the MGEL (CPIS) formalities in respect of officers borne on organized services should be streamlined and exempted from the purview of MGEL (CPIS) formalities, provided they have a unique Employee Identification (EIN) assigned by the Finance Department. However, it should be ensured that immediately after the transfer and posting, promotion, retirement, Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur should update the MGEL records through NIC at the earliest preferably within (1) one week from the date of issue of orders in this regard as per procedure laid down in the enclosed Annexure to this O.M. 3. This instruction shall come into force with immediate effect. Sd/- (A.N. Jha) Principal Secretary (Finance) Government of Manipur. 5. On bare perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009, it is clear that the only reasons for extending the benefits under the Memorandum to the other organized services are that (1) the members of the organized services viz. All India Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), Indian Forest Service (IFS), Manipur Civil Service (MCS), Manipur Police Service (Jr. 5. On bare perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009, it is clear that the only reasons for extending the benefits under the Memorandum to the other organized services are that (1) the members of the organized services viz. All India Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), Indian Forest Service (IFS), Manipur Civil Service (MCS), Manipur Police Service (Jr. MCS) and Manipur Finance Service (MFS) were appointed through duly constituted Public Service Commission and Manipur Public Service Commission, (2) the service particulars of the officers including their character and antecedents had been verified at the time of their appointment; and (3) they have the employment identification numbers (EIN) assigned by the Finance Department, Government of Manipur. 6. The respondents have filed their affidavit in opposition justifying the denial of the benefits under the said Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009 to the members of the MJS; and the reasons among others are that (1) services of members of the said organized service enumerated in the Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009 are under the purview of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur; and that if the Manipur Judicial Services is included in the list of the organized services enumerated in the said Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009, a floodgate shall open. The State respondents in their joint affidavit in opposition is not denying that the Manipur Judicial Service is also an organized service. 7. The members of the Manipur Judicial Service are appointed to the Manipur Judicial Service under the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 1976 and now under the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005. The State respondents, with due regards this Court is compelled to observe, had clearly misunderstood the exclusive fields occupied by Articles 233, 234 and 309 of the Constitution of India and the role played by those Articles so far as framing of Recruitment Rules for the judicial service. 8. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in State of Bihar & another v. Bal Mukund Sah & other, AIR 2000 SC 1296 held that "no recruitment to the post of District Judge can be made by the Governor without recommendation from the High Court. 8. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in State of Bihar & another v. Bal Mukund Sah & other, AIR 2000 SC 1296 held that "no recruitment to the post of District Judge can be made by the Governor without recommendation from the High Court. Any statutory provision by-passing consultation with the High Court regarding recruitment to the post of District Judge is to be held in direct conflict with the complete Code regarding recruitment and appointment to the post of District Judiciary and Subordinate Judiciary as permitted and envisaged by Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India. Article 309, which, on its express terms, is made subject to other provisions of the Constitution, does not get circumscribed to the extent to which its general field of operation is craved out a separate exclusive field for operation by the relevant provisions of Articles dealing with the Subordinate Judiciary as found in Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution." 9. As envisaged by Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India and Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the members of the Manipur Judicial Service are appointed on the recommendation of the High Court, by the Governor of Manipur. Even though the State respondents is not denying that the Manipur Judicial Service is the organized service like the other organized services enumerated in Para-I of the said Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009, the Court is compelled to reiterate that the Manipur Judicial Service has all the trappings of organized service. It is required to know the status, service conditions and nature of work of members of Judicial Service who are within the exclusive fields occupied by Articles 233 ,234 and 309 of the Constitution of India under the Constitution itself and also according to the several decisions of the Apex Court as well as recommendation of the Shetty Commission (Commission consisting of Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, Chairman, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India; Justice A.B. Murgod (Retd.), Member Secretary, Judge, Karnataka High Court and Justice P.K. Bahri (Retd.), Member, Judge, Delhi High Court), which had been accepted by the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association & other v. Union of India & other (2002) 4 SCC 247 : ( AIR 2002 SC 1752 ). 10. The Government of Manipur should not misunderstood the difference between the officers/staff of the Court and the Judicial Officers. 10. The Government of Manipur should not misunderstood the difference between the officers/staff of the Court and the Judicial Officers. The Staff and Officers of the Court cannot be equated with the judicial officers who exercise sovereign judicial power of the State and they are the holders of office in the same way as members of the Council of Ministers and members of legislators. The Apex Court in All India Judges' Association & other v. Union of India & other (1993) 4 SCC 288 : ( AIR 1993 SC 2493 ) in an unequivocal term held that "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 op 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 the political executive, the Legislators and the Judges and not between the Judges and the administrative executive. 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 at par with the members of the judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally." 11. The Shetty Commission had considered the qualification and age for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge and made recommendation at para 10 of the First National Judicial Pay Commission wherein the status of the District Judge had been clearly defined. The Shetty Commission had considered the qualification and age for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge and made recommendation at para 10 of the First National Judicial Pay Commission wherein the status of the District Judge had been clearly defined. It is unfortunate that in the precedence or/protocol of officers prepared by the State Government, the status/precedence of the District Judge is placed even below the Secretary of the State Government and Deputy Commissioners of the State Government. The Apex Court in the All India Judges' Association's case (supra) and Bal Mukund Sah & Ors.'s case (supra) clearly held that 'any provision of any Statute, in direct conflict with the complete code regarding recruitment and appointment to the post of District Judiciary and Subordinate Judiciary envisaged by Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India is illegal'. Therefore, the State Government requires to re-look the precedence or/protocol of officers prepared by the State Government for placing the judicial officers at the appropriate place. It is too late for the day on the part of the State Government in viewing the members of the Manipur Judicial Service (MJS) with suspicious eyes in such a way that the members of the Manipur Judicial Service, and their antecedents, had not been properly verified at the time of their recruitment. It is known to all that members of Manipur Judicial Service were appointed to the judicial service on the recommendation and/or in consultation with the highest constitutional (judicial) authority of the State, i.e. High Court, after proper verification of their antecedents. There is absolutely no reason and rationale for presuming that the antecedents of members of Manipur Judicial Service are not properly verified at the time of appointment for the purpose of denying the benefits under the said O.M dated 25.09.2009 to them. 12. In the above factual backdrop, it is clear that the Manipur Judicial Service is also an organized service and right of the members of the Manipur Judicial Service guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India had been infringed in denying the benefits under the said O.M dated 25.09.2009 to them. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Trilok Nath Khosa & other, AIR 1974 SC 1 held as follows:- 35. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Trilok Nath Khosa & other, AIR 1974 SC 1 held as follows:- 35. This argument, as presented, is attractive but it assumes in the Court a right of scrutiny somewhat wider than is generally recognized. Article 16 of the Constitution which ensures to all citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment is but an instance or incident of the guarantee of equality contained in Article 14. The concept of equal opportunity undoubtedly permeates the whole spectrum of an individual's employment from appointment through promotion and termination to the payment of gratuity and pension. But the concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Equality is for equals. That is to say that those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. 13. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Mohammad Shujat Ali & other v. Union of India & other, AIR 1974 SC 1 631 held as follows:- 23. Now we proceed to consider the challenge based on infraction of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Article 14 ensures to every person equality before law and equal protection of the laws and Article 16 lays down that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16 is only an instance or incident of the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14: it gives effect to the doctrine of equality in the sphere of public employment. 14. Discrimination presupposes classification of similarly situated persons into different groups without any reasonable basis for extending dissimilar benefits or treatment. Any reasonable person will come to the finding that there is no reason for classification of members of Manipur Judicial Service which is undoubtedly an organized service into different group for the purpose of denying the benefits under the Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009 as given to the organized services mentioned in Para-1 of the memorandum itself. The ingredients of reasonable classification under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are classification must be reasonably based on intelligible differentia, having nexus between the basis for classification and object of the legislation or/policy. The ingredients of reasonable classification under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are classification must be reasonably based on intelligible differentia, having nexus between the basis for classification and object of the legislation or/policy. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in (1) State of Himachal Pradesh & another v. Anjana Devi & other (2009) 5 SCC 108 : ( AIR 2009 SC 2229 ) and (2) V. Subramaniam v. Rajesh Raghuvandra Rao (2009) 5 SCC 608 : ( AIR 2009 SC 1858 ). 15. As stated above, one of the reasons for denying the claim of members of the Manipur Judicial Service for inclusion of the Manipur Judicial Service in the list of organized services enumerated in Para-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009 is that floodgate would open. Such denial of the claim of the members of Manipur Judicial Service only on the ground that floodgate will be opened is illegal and arbitrary. 16. The Apex Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & another v. C.K. Rajan & other (2003) 7 SCC 546 : ( AIR 2004 SC 561 ) held that 'only because floodgates of cases will be opened, by itself may not be a ground to close the door of gate of justice. The doors of the Courts must be kept open but the Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground realities while deciding the case. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) is of similar view in Zee Telefilms Ltd. & another v. Union of India & other (2005) 4 SCC 649 : ( AIR 2005 SC 2677 ). (sic) 17. The Apex Court again reiterated in Coal India Ltd. & other v. Saroj Kumar Mishra (2007) 9 SCC 625 : ( AIR 2007 SC 1706 ) that (paras 19 of the SCC) (paras 23-24 of AIR). The floodgate argument also does not appeal to us. The same appears to be an argument of desperation. Only because there is a possibility of floodgate litigation, a valuable right of a citizen cannot be permitted to be taken away. This Court is bound to determine the respective rights of the parties. (See Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649 : ( AIR 2005 SC 2677 ) and Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Ranjan (2003) 7 SCC 546 ): ( AIR 2004 SC 561 )). 18. This Court is bound to determine the respective rights of the parties. (See Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649 : ( AIR 2005 SC 2677 ) and Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Ranjan (2003) 7 SCC 546 ): ( AIR 2004 SC 561 )). 18. The Apex Court in N. Kanadasan v. Ajoy Khose & other (2009) 7 SCC 1 (para 127 of the SCC) held that Mr. Venugopal would submit that such an interpretation would open a floodgate. We do not think so. We even wish no occasion like the present one arises in future before the superior Courts for their consideration. Even otherwise, the floodgate argument does not appeal to us. In Coal India Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra (2007) 9 SCC 625 : ( AIR 2007 SC 1706 ) this Court held (SCC p. 632, para 19) (pp. 1717-1711, paras 23-24 of AIR) 19. The floodgate argument also does not appeal to us. The same appears to be an argument of desperation. Only because there is a possibility of floodgate litigation, a valuable right of a citizen cannot be permitted to be taken away. This Court is bound to determine the respective rights of the parties. (See Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649 : ( AIR 2005 SC 2677 ) and Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan (2003) 7 SCC 546 : ( AIR 2004 SC 561 )). 19. One of the reasons for denying the benefits under the Memorandum dated 25.09-2009 to the members of the Manipur Judicial Service, according to the affidavit in opposition, is that the organized services enumerated in Para-1 of the office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009 are under the purview pf the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms of the Government of Manipur. 20. For the reasons discussed above and also in view of the exclusive fields occupied by Articles 233, 234 of the Constitution such ground for denial of the benefits under the Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009, to members of the Manipur Judicial Service is wholly arbitrary and not rationale. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms of the Government of Manipur cannot be above the Constitutional authority as well as the highest judicial authority of the State, i.e. High Court. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms of the Government of Manipur cannot be above the Constitutional authority as well as the highest judicial authority of the State, i.e. High Court. For the sake of repetition, it is reiterated that the members of the Manipur Judicial Service who are within the exclusive fields occupied by Articles 233, 234 and 309 of the Constitution of India are controlled by the High Court and they cannot be under the purview of the formalities of the MGEL (CPIS) like mere employees of the State Government. (Ref: All India Judges' Assn. & other v. Union of India & other (1993) 4 SCC 288 : ( AIR 1993 SC 2493 ). 21. It is fairly well settled that wisdom of the policy decision cannot be judicially scrutinize inasmuch as it is the wisdom of the Government to take right policy decision. But still then Court can consider whether the policy is arbitrary or violative of the law. Ref: State of Punjab & another v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga & other (1998) 4 SCC 117 : ( AIR 1998 SC 1703 ). 22. The Apex Court (3 Judges) in Delhi Bar Association (Regd) v. Union of India & other (2008) 13 SCC 628 : ( AIR 2009 SC 693 ) held that:- Policy decision taken by the Government cannot be faulted with unless it suffers from unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness or it is beyond legislative powers of the State or is beyond constitutional limits. In the present case, not only policy decision taken by NCT of Delhi is founded on prolonged and in-depth deliberation between NCT of Delhi, Lt. Governor and the Delhi High Court which is directly concerned with the division of Delhi into judicial districts, but is also a result of directions issued by the Supreme Court. 23. The policy decision of the Government of Manipur for not including the Manipur Judicial Services in the list of other organized services enumerated in the Para No. 1 of the said office memorandum dated 25.09.2009 is arbitrary and devoid of fairness and reasonableness. 24. 23. The policy decision of the Government of Manipur for not including the Manipur Judicial Services in the list of other organized services enumerated in the Para No. 1 of the said office memorandum dated 25.09.2009 is arbitrary and devoid of fairness and reasonableness. 24. For the foregoing reasons, respondents are directed to include the Manipur Judicial Service in the list of organized services enumerated in Para-1 of the said office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009 and/or in other words, the members of the Manipur Judicial Service should not be subject to purview of MGEL (CPIS) formalities for the payment of their salaries after their transfer and posting and promotion. It is further directed that the respondents should issue the necessary order in compliance of the above directions within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. The Registry is directed to furnish copies of this judgment and order to (i) The Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, (ii) the Secretary/Principal Secretary (D.P), Government of Manipur, (iii) the Principal Secretary/Secretary (Finance), Government of Manipur and (iv) the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur for necessary actions and also District & Sessions Judges, Manipur East and Manipur West for information.