Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 400 (ALL)

CLASS IV EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-02-02

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner No. 1 is an association (Petitioner Association) of Class-IV employees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (High Court). Its General Secretary has joined the writ petition as petitioner No. 2. They have preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 26th July, 2012 passed by the State Government rejecting the recommendations of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this High Court made under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India, whereby it was recommended to enhance the pay-scales of the members of the petitioner Association and some other staff of the High Court equivalent to the pay-scale of their counterparts in the Delhi High Court. The State Government has rejected their claim only on the ground that in case the parity is granted to the petitioners, similarly placed employees of the Secretariat and other Departments of the State shall also raise the similar demand and it will adversely affect the financial condition of the State. 2. The essential facts of the case are that the members of the petitioner Association are working on different categories of Class-IV posts, such as Jamadar, Daftari, Bundle Lifter, Head Mali, Mali, Peon, Farrash, Bhisti, Sweeper, Fireman, Chowkidar, etc. (non-technical posts) and Electrician, Pump-operator, Telephone Mechanic, Photocopier-cum-Machine Operator, etc. (technical posts) in the establishment of this High Court. The service conditions of the members of the petitioner Association are governed under the provisions of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (Rules of 1976). 3. Previously, the members of the petitioner Association were in the pay-scales of Rs. 750-940 and Rs. 775-1025, as the case may be. The petitioner Association preferred a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15211 of 1997 (Class-IV Employees Association of High Court and another v. State of U.P. and others), seeking a direction upon the State to grant the pay-scales of Rs. 975-1660 and Rs. 1000-1750 in place of aforesaid pay-scales of Rs. 750-940 and Rs. 775-1025 respectively to the Class-IV employees of the High Court, as the case may be, w.e.f. 01st January, 1986. 4. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 06th February, 1998 by issuing a direction upon the respondents to pay the salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 750-940 and Rs. 775-1025 respectively to the Class-IV employees of the High Court, as the case may be, w.e.f. 01st January, 1986. 4. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 06th February, 1998 by issuing a direction upon the respondents to pay the salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1660 to all those Class-IV employees who were at that time in the pay-scale of Rs. 750-940, and the salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 1000-1750 to all such Class-IV employees who were in the pay-scale of Rs. 775-1025. It was also directed that they would be entitled for the said pay-scales w.e.f. 01st July, 1994. 5. Dissatisfied with the said order, the State Government preferred a special appeal, being Special Appeal No. 200 of 1998 (The State of U.P. through the Secretary, Finance Department, U.P. Shasan, Lucknow v. Class-IV Employees Association, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others). The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 05th November, 2003 set aside the order of the learned Single Judge leaving it open to Hon’ble the Chief Justice to take a decision in regard to grant of higher pay-scale. It was also observed by the Division Bench that in case any such decision is taken by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the same shall be approved by the State Government. 6. The order of the Division Bench was challenged by the petitioner Association by Special Leave Petition No. 887 of 2004, which was converted to Civil Appeal No. 6878 of 2004 (Class IV Emps. Asson., H/C, Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. and another). The said civil appeal was disposed of on 15th October, 2004 in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Section Officer Brotherhood and another, (2004) 8 SCALE 247 . 7. Relevant, it would be to mention that Section Officers, Private Secretaries, Bench Secretaries and Assistant Registrars working in this High Court had preferred their respective writ petitions (Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 18979 of 1998, 970 of 2000, 30234 of 2001 and 17885 of 1996) for the similar relief regarding grant of higher pay-scales. Their writ petitions were also allowed by this Court by separate judgments. Writ Petition Nos. 18979 of 1998, 970 of 2000, 30234 of 2001 and 17885 of 1996) for the similar relief regarding grant of higher pay-scales. Their writ petitions were also allowed by this Court by separate judgments. Aggrieved by the orders passed by this Court in their writ petitions, the State of Uttar Pradesh preferred several special leave petitions, which were converted to Civil Appeal Nos. 1980 of 2000 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Section Officer Brotherhood and another), 1260 of 2001, 1528-29 of 2004 and 2732 of 1999. The Supreme Court by a common judgment and order dated 27th September, 2004 allowed all the aforementioned civil appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court holding that the Chief Justice had not framed any rule for the higher pay-scale and the High Court was not justified in issuing direction under Article 226 of the Constitution by issuing a mandamus to the State Government for grant of the higher pay-scales. However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the said order shall be subject to the Rules framed by the Chief Justice by constituting an appropriate committee for the said purpose and in case the Committee makes a recommendation for enhancement of the scale of pay, the same would be considered by the State Government in proper perspective. As observed above, the appeal of the petitioners was also disposed of on 15th October, 2004 in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in its order dated 27th September, 2004 in the above mentioned case of the Section Officers, etc. (supra). 8. Thereupon Hon’ble the Chief Justice, vide His Lordship’s order dated 28th November, 2004, constituted a Committee of four Hon’ble Judges of this High Court to consider and recommend the appropriate amendments in the rules with regard to the pay-scale of the employees of the establishment of the High Court. The said Committee, constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, submitted its report on 23rd December, 2004. The recommendations of the Committee were approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 24th December, 2004 and two draft rules, known as the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) (Amendment) Rules, 2005 (Rules of 2005) and the Allahabad High Court Bench Secretaries (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2004 (Rules of 2004) were framed. 9. The recommendations of the Committee were approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 24th December, 2004 and two draft rules, known as the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) (Amendment) Rules, 2005 (Rules of 2005) and the Allahabad High Court Bench Secretaries (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2004 (Rules of 2004) were framed. 9. A perusal of Schedule-I of the said Rules of 2005 shows that it recommended that the promotional and technical posts of cadre of Class-IV were to receive the pay-scale of Rs. 3200-4900 and the other Class-IV employees of non-technical posts were to be placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590 per month. 10. On 26th December, 2004 the Registrar General of the High Court requested the State Government to take necessary action for implementation of the recommendations made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The salient features of the recommendations and the Rules of 2004 and 2005 are as under: I. Section Officers of the establishment of the High Court are divided in two categories namely: (a) Section Officer Grade-I; and (b) Section Officer Grade-II. They were recommended to be placed in the pay-scales of Rs. 6500-10500 and Rs. 10000-15200 respectively. The Rules of 2005 provide that the promotion from Section Officer Grade-I to Section Officer Grade-II would be made on the basis of seniority subject to satisfactory service of five years. II. Insofar as Class-IV employees are concerned, it was recommended that all Class-IV employees irrespective of their categories, except those for whom the recruitment is provided by promotion, namely, Jamadar, Daftari, Bundle Lifter and Head Mali in Rule 4(b) to (e) of the Rules of 1976 and those who are required to possess technical qualifications for recruitment, should be placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590. The others, namely, the promotional and technical posts be given the pay-scale of Rs. 3200-4900 with all admissible allowances which they are getting at present in respect of different categories of posts with regard to the nature of duties performed by them. III. There was a recommendation under the Rules of 2004 in respect of Bench Secretaries which has no relevance in the present controversy. 11. Subsequently on 16th February, 2005 the Registrar General sent the draft rules of the Rules of 2004 and 2005 to the Principal Secretary (Judicial) & Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., Lucknow to move the Government to obtain necessary approval. 11. Subsequently on 16th February, 2005 the Registrar General sent the draft rules of the Rules of 2004 and 2005 to the Principal Secretary (Judicial) & Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., Lucknow to move the Government to obtain necessary approval. 12. It is significant to recall that after the special appeal of the State was allowed and the special leave petition filed by the petitioner Association against the order of the special appeal was disposed of, on 01st August, 2005 Hon’ble the Chief Justice passed an order reiterating the decision of the Committee of four Hon’ble Judges, as was constituted by the Chief Justice, referred above, dated 23/24th December, 2004 directing for placing the matter before the Government for approval and till a final decision is taken, pay should be under a status quo as on the date of above recommendation and no reduction or recovery shall be made till further orders. On 03rd August, 2005 Hon’ble the Chief Justice again passed an order protecting the pay. On 23rd August, 2005 the Registrar General of the High Court again wrote to the Principal Secretary (Judicial) & L.R., Government of U.P., Lucknow to move the Government for accepting the recommendations made and Rules proposed by the High Court. The petitioner Association made a representation dated 19th September, 2005 to Hon’ble the Chief Justice for the protection of their salary payable for the month of September, 2005. On their representation Hon’ble the Chief Justice passed an order, which was communicated by the Registrar (Establishment) of the High Court to the petitioners vide office-order dated 23rd September, 2005, that Full Court resolution must be respected. 13. On 08th October, 2005 the State Government approved the Rules of 2004 framed for the Bench Secretaries, namely, the Allahabad High Court Bench Secretaries (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2005. However, no decision was taken by the State Government in respect of the Rules of 2005 i.e. Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) (Amendment) Rules, 2005. Therefore, the petitioners moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27201 of 2006 (Class IV Employees Association, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. and others) for a direction upon the State Government to take decision on the recommendations and to approve the Rules of 2005. 14. Writ Petition No. 27201 of 2006 (Class IV Employees Association, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. and others) for a direction upon the State Government to take decision on the recommendations and to approve the Rules of 2005. 14. On 17th May, 2006 this Court disposed of the said writ petition and issued a direction to the State Government to proceed to process the recommendations made by this Court on the administrative side for its compliance or alternatively by convening a meeting of the concerned officials of the State Government and the High Court, who may be authorized to discuss the issue, and thereafter to take an appropriate decision expeditiously preferably within four months. (Emphasis supplied) 15. The aforesaid order dated 17th May, 2006 passed by this Court was not complied with, therefore, the petitioners preferred a contempt petition, being Contempt Petition No. 5387 of 2006. In the contempt proceedings, alongwith the counter-affidavit an order of the State Government dated 28th February, 2007 was filed whereby the State Government rejected the recommendations of the Chief Justice by a simple order that enhancement of the pay-scale of Class-IV employees is not possible. However, the State Government vide letter dated 08th October, 2005 accorded its approval to the Allahabad High Court Bench Secretaries (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2004 and those Rules were notified on 30th September, 2005. Thus, in view of the order of the Sate Government, the contempt petition was dismissed on 12th March, 2007. 16. Significantly, in compliance with the earlier order of the learned Single Judge dated 06th February, 1998 directing the enhancement of pay-scales of Class-IV employees of the High Court equivalent to the Class-IV employees of the Delhi High Court, the Class-IV employees of the High Court started receiving the higher pay-scale and continued to receive the same till the said judgment was set aside by the Division Bench. 17. Since reduction of the pay-scale was causing a lot of resentment in the employees, upon their representation Hon’ble the Chief Justice had passed an order on 03rd August, 2005 to maintain the status quo. 17. Since reduction of the pay-scale was causing a lot of resentment in the employees, upon their representation Hon’ble the Chief Justice had passed an order on 03rd August, 2005 to maintain the status quo. It is pertinent to mention that after the judgment of the Supreme Court, Hon’ble the Chief Justice constituted a Committee and the recommendations of the said Committee were approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, as mentioned above, and accordingly the Rules under Article 229 of the Constitution were framed, which the State Government declined to approve. 18. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Government dated 28th February, 2007, the petitioners preferred another writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19454 of 2007 (Class IV Employees Association, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. and others). The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 27th May, 2009 on the ground that the order of the State Government does not disclose any reason. The Court held that whenever the Chief Justice, who is a very high dignitary of the State, frames Rules, it should be looked upon with respect and ordinarily the Rules should be approved unless there are strong and cogent reasons for not approving. Accordingly, the order of the State Government was quashed and a mandamus was issued to the State Government to place the draft rules framed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice under Article 229(2) of the Constitution for approval before the Governor. 19. Aggrieved by the said order dated 27th May, 2009, the State preferred Special Appeal No. 1487 of 2009 (State of U.P. and another v. Class IV Employees Association and another). In the special appeal, the State Government took a stand that the State had already taken a decision which was brought on the record but was not considered by the learned Single Judge. In view of the above, the Division Bench left it open to the State Government to file a review application before the learned Single Judge. With the aforesaid observation, the special appeal was dismissed on 18th May, 2010. 20. The State Government, without filing any review petition, filed Special Leave Petition No. 11965 of 2010 (State of U.P. and another v. Class-IV Empl. Ass. HC At Allahabad and others). With the aforesaid observation, the special appeal was dismissed on 18th May, 2010. 20. The State Government, without filing any review petition, filed Special Leave Petition No. 11965 of 2010 (State of U.P. and another v. Class-IV Empl. Ass. HC At Allahabad and others). The said special leave petition was disposed of on 16th August, 2010 leaving it open to the State Government to file a review application before the learned Single Judge, as directed by the Division Bench. 21. Thereupon, a review application was filed by the State before the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19454 of 2007. The review application was rejected vide order dated 09th March, 2011 and the State Government was directed to take appropriate action in the light of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27th May, 2009 forthwith. 22. Aggrieved by the said order, the State filed Special Appeal No. 1474 of 2011 (State of U.P. and others v. Class IV Employees Association, High Court and others), which, on the statement of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has been dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 19th March, 2013. 23. During the pendency of the said Special Appeal No. 1474 of 2011, the impugned order dated 26th July, 2012 has been passed rejecting the proposed Rules of 2005 under Article 229(2) of the Constitution. In the impugned order, it is stated that it has been passed on the recommendation of the Cabinet by the Hon’ble Governor. 24. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents sworn by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The stand taken by the State Government is that in the year 1962 in All India Chief Justices’ Conference held at Mumbai a resolution was passed that there should be a parity in the pay-scales of the employees of the High Court with that of the employees of the Secretariat of the State. Keeping the said principle in mind, the State Government issued an order dated 20th March, 1968 granting such parity in the pay-scales of Class-IV employees of the Allahabad High Court with that of the Class-IV employees of the U.P. Secretariat. Keeping the said principle in mind, the State Government issued an order dated 20th March, 1968 granting such parity in the pay-scales of Class-IV employees of the Allahabad High Court with that of the Class-IV employees of the U.P. Secretariat. The claim of the Class-IV employees of the High Court, as contained in the draft Rules of 2005, submitted by the High Court for approval of the Governor was not approved on the ground that the same is likely to result in great disparity between the employees of the High Court and the State Secretariat and will heavily burden the State exchequer. It is stated that the matter was placed before the then Hon’ble Chief Minister and the then Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, who disapproved the hike in salary of Class-IV employees of the High Court on 24th February, 2007. Pursuant to the said decision, the Principal Secretary (Law), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow vide order dated 28th February, 2007 intimated the High Court that hike in salary is not possible. 25. It is stated that after the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 15th October, 2004 passed in the civil appeal of the petitioners, the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice constituted a Committee of the Hon’ble Judges which recommended the pay-scales of Rs. 3050-4590 and Rs. 3200-4900 to the non-technical and technical & promotional Class-IV posts respectively. The Hon’ble the Chief Justice has accepted the recommendations of the said Committee of the Hon’ble Judges and a draft rule i.e. Rules of 2005 has been framed. The said pay-scales have not been approved by the State for the reason that the said pay-scales are presently available and are being given only to Class-III employees i.e. Typists, Junior Clerks, Drivers, etc. of large number of departments. Therefore, in case the draft Rules of 2005 is approved then there are large number of employees of other establishments who would also start pressing for grant of the same parity and the Class-III employees like Typists, Junior Clerks and Drivers, etc., who are presently drawing the aforesaid pay-scales will start agitating for parity in the pay-scale of the High Court employees. It is apprehended by the State Government that there would be chain reaction and the process will be unending. It is apprehended by the State Government that there would be chain reaction and the process will be unending. It is further stated that the pay-scales have been fixed by the expert bodies and there is no grievance of the petitioners that its members are getting lesser pay in comparison to the pay-scale of Class-IV employees of the Secretariat of the State Government. 26. Insofar as the claim of the petitioners for getting the pay-scale which is being drawn by the Class-IV employees of the Delhi High Court is concerned, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that no such parity can be granted keeping in view the situation that each State has its own pay structure and has its own limited resources. The State is maintaining the parity, which has been agreed on principle. 27. It is further stated that in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court dated 27th September, 2004 a High Level Committee was constituted by the State Government to look into the grievances of Class-IV employees and the said Committee was consisting of 76 Members. The Committee came to the conclusion that the pay-scales recommended in the draft Rules of 2005 for the Class-IV employees of the Allahabad High Court cannot be approved. It is also stated that His Excellency the Governor of the State has not approved the order passed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for enhancement/upgradation of salaries and allowances of Class-IV employees of the High Court and as such, the enhancement/upgradation order passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice was contrary to the provisions of Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of paragraph-27 of the counter-affidavit is extracted below: “27. ... It is respectfully that his Excellency the Governor of the State had not approved the enhancement/upgradation order passed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for salaries and allowances of Class-IV employees of High Court. As such the enhancement/upgradation order passed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice was contrary to the provisions of Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India.” 28. The State has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. v. P.D. Attri and others, (1999) 3 SCC 217 . 29. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. 30. The State has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. v. P.D. Attri and others, (1999) 3 SCC 217 . 29. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. 30. The members of the petitioner Association are governed under the provisions of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976. This writ petition is their fourth round of litigation for enhancement of their pay-scales and they are pursuing litigation for the last 18 years. Previously, the petitioners’ Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15211 of 1997 was allowed by this Court on 06th February, 1998. This Court found that the Class-IV employees who were in the pay-scale of Rs. 750-940 were entitled for the enhancement of their salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1660 and those Class-IV employees, who were in the pay-scale of Rs. 775-1025, were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 1000-1750. Aggrieved by the said order, the State Government had filed Special Appeal No. 200 of 1998, which was allowed on 05th November, 2003 and it was observed that the matter may be considered by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The petitioners took up the matter to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court on 15th October, 2004 disposed of their appeal and left the matter open to be considered by the Chief Justice for framing rules. In compliance with the order of the Supreme Court, on 28th November, 2004 Hon’ble the Chief Justice constituted a Committee of four Hon’ble Judges of this Court to consider and recommend the Rules with regard to pay-scales of the employees of the establishment of the High Court. The Committee submitted its report on 23rd December, 2004 and gave its recommendations for various cadres. The recommendations of the Committee with regard to Class-IV employees, insofar as is material for the present case, read as under: “For class-IV employees we recommend that all Class-IV employees irrespective of their categories, except those for whom the recruitment is provided by promotion namely, Jamadar, Daftari, Bundle lifter and Head Mali in Rule 4(b) to (e) of the rules of 1976 and those who are required to possess technical qualifications for recruitment, should be placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. The others namely the promotional posts and technical posts be given the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. The others namely the promotional posts and technical posts be given the pay-scale of Rs. 3200-4900/- with all admissible allowances which they are getting at present in respect of different categories of post with regard to the nature of duties performed by them.” 31. The aforesaid report of the Committee was approved by the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 24th December, 2004 and following order was made: “I find the recommendations to be reasonable and accept the report. Government be moved forthwith with a request to implement the recommendations at the earliest.” 32. The aforesaid recommendations and the draft Rules of 2005 alongwith Rules of 2004 were sent to the Government for approval on 26th December, 2004 and 16th February, 2005 respectively. When on 08th October, 2005 the Rules of 2004 was approved but no decision was taken in respect of the draft Rules of 2005, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No. 27201 of 2006, which was disposed of by this Court on 17th May, 2006 with a direction to the State to take decision. The petitioners had also taken a contempt proceedings, wherein alongwith the counter-affidavit an order dated 28th February, 2007 was filed whereby claim of the petitioners was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners challenged the order dated 28th February, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 19454 of 2007, which was allowed on 27th May, 2009 and a mandamus was issued to the State to place the draft Rules before the Governor for approval. This judgment was followed by dismissal of State’s special appeal, special leave petition, review application and special appeal again. It is in this background that vide impugned order dated 26th July, 2012 the Government has again declined to approve the draft Rules of 2005. 33. The State Government has rejected the draft Rules of 2005 basically on two grounds: (i) The State Government has taken a decision consequent to the resolution of the All India Chief Justices’ Conference of 1962 to maintain the parity between the employees of the High Court and the Secretariat of the State; and, (ii) There would be heavy burden on the State exchequer. The State has also relied on Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India for rejecting the recommendations of the Chief Justice. 34. It is pertinent to mention that Article 229 and Article 146 of the Constitution are pari materia. The State has also relied on Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India for rejecting the recommendations of the Chief Justice. 34. It is pertinent to mention that Article 229 and Article 146 of the Constitution are pari materia. For the sake of convenience, Articles 146 and 229 of the Constitution are extracted hereunder: “146. Officers and servants and the expenses of the Supreme Court.—(1) Appointment of officers and servants of the Supreme Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of India or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct: Provided that the President 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 Union Public Service Commission. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the conditions of service of officers and servants of the Supreme Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of India or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice of India 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 President. (3) The administrative expenses of the Supreme 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 India, and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund.” “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 Governor 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 that Fund.” 35. The scope and the purpose of Article 229 of the Constitution was elaborately considered by the Supreme Court in one of its decisions in M. Gurumoorthy v. Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland and others, (1971) 2 SCC 137 . The Supreme Court held thus: “11. The unequivocal purpose and obvious intention of the framers of the Constitution in enacting Article 229 is that in the matter of appointment 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 the article. This is essentially to secure and maintain the independence of the High Courts. The anxiety of the Constitution-makers to achieve that object is fully shown by putting the administrative expenses of a High Court including all salaries, allowances and pension payable to or in respect of officers and servants of the Court at the same level as the salaries and allowances of the judges of the High Court nor can the amount of any expenditure so charged be varied even by the Legislature. Clause(1), read with clause (2) of Article 229 conferred exclusive power not only in the matter of appointments but also with regard to prescribing the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court by Rules on the Chief Justice of the Court. Clause(1), read with clause (2) of Article 229 conferred exclusive power not only in the matter of appointments but also with regard to prescribing the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court by Rules on the Chief Justice of the Court. This is subject to any legislation by the State Legislature but only in respect of conditions of service. In the matter of appointments even the Legislature cannot abridge or modify the powers conferred on the Chief Justice under clause (1). The approval of the Governor, as noticed in the matter of rules, is confined only to such rules as relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pension. All other rules in respect of conditions of service do not require his approval...” 36. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthi and others, (1976) 2 SCC 883 , the Supreme Court was considering the clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court made the following observations: “6. ... If there is a law made by the Legislature of the State then subject to that law, otherwise without it, the Chief Justice or some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice is empowered to make rules laying down the conditions of service of the High Court staff. But if the Rules made under clause (2) relate to salaries, allowances, or pensions then since in them is involved the question of finance the framing of the rules under clause (2) requires the approval of the Governor—that means the State Government. One should expect in the fitness of things and in view of the spirit of Article 229 that ordinarily and generally the approval should be accorded. But surely it is wrong to say that the approval is a mere formality and in no case it is open to the Government to refuse to accord their approval.” (Emphasis supplied) 37. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Section Officer Brotherhood and another, (2004) 8 SCC 286 , has made observations in the following terms: “26. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Section Officer Brotherhood and another, (2004) 8 SCC 286 , has made observations in the following terms: “26. The Court noticed that fixation of scale of pay in favour of one class of employees has a spiralling effect and in that view of the matter it is important that the matter as regards fixation of scale of pay of officers working in different High Courts must either be examined by an expert body like the Pay Commission or any other body and in absence thereof the High Court itself should undertake the task, keeping in view the special constitutional provisions contained in Article 229 of the Constitution of India. 27. Having regard to the high position and status enjoyed by the Chief Justice, it was observed, his recommendations should ordinarily be approved by the State and refusal thereof must be for strong and adequate reasons.” (Emphasis supplied) 38. In Union of India and another v. S.B. Vohra and others, (2004) 2 SCC 150 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “11. Independence of the High Court is an essential feature for working of the democratic form of Government in the country. An absolute control, therefore, has been vested in the High Court over its staff which would be free from interference from the Government subject of course to the limitations imposed by the said provision. There cannot be, however, any doubt whatsoever that while exercising such a power the Chief Justice of the High Court would only be bound by the limitation contained in clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the proviso appended thereto. Approval of the President/Governor of the State is, thus, required to be obtained in relation to the rules containing provisions as regards salary, allowances, leave or promotion. It is trite that such approval should ordinarily be granted as a matter of course.” (Emphasis supplied) 39. The above principles have been reiterated in the decision of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India and another, (1989) 4 SCC 187 . Since facts of this case are somewhat similar, a brief reference to the factual aspect thereof would suffice. The above principles have been reiterated in the decision of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India and another, (1989) 4 SCC 187 . Since facts of this case are somewhat similar, a brief reference to the factual aspect thereof would suffice. The association of the employees of the Supreme Court filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for higher pay-scales on two grounds: firstly, a Committee of Five Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati as Chairman, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.D. Tulzapurkar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.A. Desai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Pathak and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali (as their Lordships then were) had made a recommendation for the higher pay of the employees of the Supreme Court; and, secondly, they sought parity with the employees of the Delhi High Court, as the Delhi High Court in its judgment had granted higher pay-scales to its employees. 40. The aforesaid Committee of Five Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in its report had observed that the third Pay Commission has adopted the parity of pay structure of the Staff of the Registry of the Supreme Court with the pay structure in the Central Services for comparable posts. The Committee of Hon’ble Judges was of the opinion that the comparison of the aforesaid two categories was both facile and superficial. The said comparison between two status of the employees was not functional but according to the designation and no attempt was made by the Pay Commission to compare the workload, skill, educational qualifications, responsibilities and duties of various categories of posts in the Registry and complex nature of the work. 41. Thus, the Committee was of the view that a very comprehensive investigation was necessary. The Committee made a recommendation that the Chief Justice of India might appoint a committee of experts to devise a fair pay structure for the staff of the Supreme Court keeping in view the principles of pay determination and on the recommendations of the Committee, the Chief Justice of India may frame rules under Article 146 of the Constitution and submit them for the approval of the President of India. 42. 42. The Supreme Court while considering the scope of Article 146(2) of the Constitution, which is pari materia of Article 229 (2) of the Constitution, held that the Chief Justice of India is the appropriate authority to consider the question as to distinctive nature and personality of the Supreme Court and before laying down the pay structure of the employees of the Supreme Court, it may be ascertained according to job contents of various categories of employees and nature of duties which are performed by them. It was also observed that the Chief Justice of India may appoint a Committee of Judges to submit a report relating to all relevant matters and thereafter the Chief Justice may frame rules. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under: “62. Thus as delegated legislation or a subordinate legislation must conform exactly to the power granted. So far as the question of grant of approval by the President of India under the proviso to Article 146 (2) is concerned, no such conditions have been laid down to be fulfilled before the President of India grants or refuses to grant approval. By virtue of Article 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 Article 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 Article 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. 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. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 43. The Supreme Court in the case of High Court Employees Welfare Assn. v. State of W.B., (2004) 1 SCC 334 : 2003 AIR SCW 6338, has observed as under: “11. The Government will have to bear in mind the special nature of the work done in the High Court which the Chief Justice and his colleagues alone could really appreciate. If the Government does not desire to meet the needs of the High Court, the administration of the High Court will face severe crisis.” 44. In the case of S.B. Vohra and others (supra), the Supreme Court has rejected the submission of the Union of India that in case the higher pay-scale is granted to the employees of the High Court, the same would have adverse effect on the other employees of the State and the matter of the financial implication. In the case of S.B. Vohra and others (supra), the Supreme Court has rejected the submission of the Union of India that in case the higher pay-scale is granted to the employees of the High Court, the same would have adverse effect on the other employees of the State and the matter of the financial implication. The Supreme Court has held that it is the primary duty of the Union of India or the State concerned normally to accept the suggestion made by a holder of a high office like a Chief Justice of a High Court and differ with his recommendations only in exceptional cases and the reason for differing with the opinion of the Chief Justice must be cogent and sufficient. In paragraphs-46 and 48 of the judgment the Supreme Court has held as under: “46. Decisions of this Court, as discussed hereinbefore, in no unmistakable terms suggest that it is the primary duty of the Union of India or the State concerned normally to accept the suggestion made by a holder of a high office like a Chief Justice of a High Court and differ with his recommendations only in exceptional cases. The reason for differing with the opinion of the holder of such high office must be cogent and sufficient. Even in case of such difference of opinion, the authorities must discuss amongst themselves and try to iron out the differences. The appellant unfortunately did not perform its own duties. *** *** *** 48. It has to be further borne in mind that it is not always helpful to raise the question of financial implications vis-a-vis the effect of grant of a particular scale of pay to the officers of the High Court on the ground that the same would have adverse effect on the other employees of the State. Scale of pay is fixed on certain norms; one of them being the quantum of work undertaken by the officers concerned as well as the extent of efficiency, integrity etc. required to be maintained by the holder of such office. This aspect of the matter has been highlighted by this Court in the case of the Judicial Officers in All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 119 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 9 : (1992) 19 ATC 42 and (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 508. This aspect of the matter has been highlighted by this Court in the case of the Judicial Officers in All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 119 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 9 : (1992) 19 ATC 42 and (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 508. as well as the report of the Shetty Commission.” 45. What emerges from the above mentioned case is that it is a well-established principle in law that once the rules are framed by the Chief Justice, a high constitutional dignitary, it will only be in exceptional cases that the Governor can reject it. 46. In the present case, the State has taken only two grounds to reject the rule framed by the Chief Justice: (i) financial implication, and (ii) adverse effect on other employees. Both these grounds have been turned down by the Supreme Court in the case of S.B. Vohra (supra) as not sufficient. From a perusal of the impugned order of the State Government it is evident that no cogent reason has been assigned. Only a conclusion that it is not possible, has been mentioned. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Article 146 and Article 229 of the Constitution that it is a legislative power conferred upon the Chief Justice. Thus, the recommendations of the Chief Justice should not be rejected except on the cogent reasons. The chronological events and the facts of this case also indicate that the State has not taken the recommendations of Hon’ble the Chief Justice with due deference. 47. Hearing of the present writ petition was adjourned several times by this Court with a hope and trust that the State would arrange a meeting of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble the Chief Minister, so that there should be effective consultation and exchange of views between holder of two high offices. The order-sheet reveals that this Court on 03rd December, 2013 had directed the learned counsel for the State to arrange a meeting between Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble the Chief Minister, whenever Hon’ble the Chief Justice sits at Lucknow Bench. For the said purpose, the matter was adjourned. 48. It is surprising that no steps were taken by the State for a meeting of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble the Chief Minister in spite of the time granted by this Court. For the said purpose, the matter was adjourned. 48. It is surprising that no steps were taken by the State for a meeting of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble the Chief Minister in spite of the time granted by this Court. The concerned State functionaries are fully aware that Hon’ble the Chief Justice sits at Lucknow Bench in the third week of every month. This schedule is being followed for the last several years by all the Hon’ble Chief Justices but no effort was made by the State Government for the exchange of thoughts between the aforementioned dignitaries. The aforesaid conduct of the State functionaries indicate that they did not pay proper and due attention to the matter and the issue was taken in routine and mechanical manner by rejecting the proposal of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 49. As regards the stand taken by the State Government that the earlier a Committee was constituted comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.R. Alam (as his Lordship then was) and other Hon’ble Judges and the said Committee has not taken any decision, is misconceived. The draft Rules, which were sent with the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, on 16th February, 2005 have not been modified or recalled by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Therefore, the constitution of another Committee on administrative side has no bearing in the present case. 50. Insofar as the stand taken by the State Government that it has accepted the recommendations of the All India Chief Justices’ Conference held in 1962 is concerned, it may be stated that much water has flown under the bridges since 1962. There is vast difference in the financial position of the State Government in the year 2015 when compared with the position of 1962. 51. In response to a query made by the Court in respect of the revenue earned by the State through the Court fees and stamp the State Government has filed a compliance affidavit sworn by Sri Amarjeet Tripathi, posted as Special Secretary/Additional Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Pradesh. In the said affidavit, the State has supplied the figures in respect of the amount received by the State under the above heads and has also given the figures relating to the expenditure incurred by it under the heads capital expenditure and revenue expenditure for the financial years 2010-11 to 2014-15. In the said affidavit, the State has supplied the figures in respect of the amount received by the State under the above heads and has also given the figures relating to the expenditure incurred by it under the heads capital expenditure and revenue expenditure for the financial years 2010-11 to 2014-15. Paragraph-5 of the compliance affidavit, in which detailed figures have been mentioned, is reproduced below: “5. That as per information received from the Finance Department, the datas are as follows : A. The amount received by the State from the sale of Court fees and stamp during the financial years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 are given hereunder : (Amount in crores) Sl. Item Years 2010-11 Years 2011-12 Years 2012-13 Years 2013-14 1 Court fees 2456.22 1169.89 68.05 275.30 2 Sale of stamps 1093.60 1860.87 1683.64 2728.14 It may be clarified that the Finance Department has indicated that so far as the datas regarding the financial year 2014-2015 are not available from the AGUP. However, from the different Treasuries of the State, some information has been received regarding money received in the year 2014-2015 which is as follows : (Amount in crores) Sl. Item Year 2014-15 1 Court fees 26.59 2 Sale of Stamps 2110.07 Note : The AG (UP) has yet to authenticate datas for the years 2014-15 B. That so far as the expenditures are concerned during the relevant financial year classified as expenditures incurred as “Capital Expenditure” as well as “Revenue Expenditures” which are as follows : (Amount in crores) Sl. Financial Capital Revenue Capital Years Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures and Revenue Expenditures (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 3+4 1 2010-11 65.64 1047.94 1113.58 2 2011-12 186.71 1230.03 1416.74 3 2012-13 403.67 1134.17 1537.84 4 2013- 14 474.18 1245.15 1719.33 5 2014-15 599.57 1281.88 1881.45" For the sake of convenience, the aforesaid figures, as have been furnished, are extracted herein-below in a tabular form: Sl. No. Financial Year Amount received from Court fees (In crores) Amount received from Stamp (In crores) Total (C + D) (In crores) Capital Expendit- ures (In crores) Revenue Expendit- ures (In crores) Total (F + G) (In crores) Difference of Total (E - H) (In crores) A B C D E F G H I 1. 2010-2011 2456.22 1093.60 3549.82 65.64 1047.94 1113.58 2436.24 2. 2011-2012 1169.89 1860.87 3030.76 186.71 1230.03 1416.74 1614.02 3. 2010-2011 2456.22 1093.60 3549.82 65.64 1047.94 1113.58 2436.24 2. 2011-2012 1169.89 1860.87 3030.76 186.71 1230.03 1416.74 1614.02 3. 2012-2013 68.05 1683.64 1751.69 403.67 1134.17 1537.84 213.85 4. 2013-2014 275.30 2728.14 3003.44 474.18 1245.15 1719.33 1284.11 5. 2014-2015 26.59 2110.07 2136.66 599.57 1281.88 1881.45 255.21 Total 3996.05 9476.32 13472.37 1729.77 5939.17 7668.94 5803.43 52. The revenue earned by the State Government, which is shown in the above table, does not include amounts under the other heads like fine and cost imposed by the Courts, auction money of the shops situated within the campus of the subordinate Courts, etc., which are also received by the State Government. From a perusal of the aforesaid table it is evident that the State in the last five financial years has received Rs. 13,472.37 crores from the Court fees and stamp alone. Under the heads capital expenditure, which it spends on infrastructure of the entire judiciary, and revenue expenditure, under which salary etc. is paid, the total amount which has been spent by the State on the judiciary in the last five financial years is Rs. 7668.94 crores. 53. From the aforementioned figures, it is, therefore, clear that in the last five financial years the State has a sum of Rs. 5803.43 crores surplus with it from the sale of Court fees and stamp. As noted above, this amount does not include a huge amount received by the State Government under the heads of fine, cost, auction money, etc. 54. In view of the facts mentioned above, it is more than clear that the State has spent less amount on the judiciary than what has received from it. The State cannot treat the judiciary as a source of its income. It is under the constitutional obligation to release sufficient fund for proper and efficient functioning of the High Court and subordinate Courts. As noted by the Shetty Commission, the total amount spent on the judiciary in India out of G.N.P. is lowest in the world. In India only 0.2% of G.N.P. is spent on the judiciary, whereas even a small country spends more than that amount on the judiciary. The details of some other countries are as under: U.K. - 4.3% U.S.A. - 1.4% Korea - more than 0.2% Singapore - 1.2% India - not more than 0.2% 55. In India only 0.2% of G.N.P. is spent on the judiciary, whereas even a small country spends more than that amount on the judiciary. The details of some other countries are as under: U.K. - 4.3% U.S.A. - 1.4% Korea - more than 0.2% Singapore - 1.2% India - not more than 0.2% 55. The First Law Commission of India was presided over by Shri M.C. Setalvad, the then Attorney General of India, and it was was comprised of the Chief Justices of two High Courts and other eminent jurists. The Commission had made an inspection of the Allahabad District Court and in its fourteenth report has recorded its observations about the pitiable condition with regard to working and infrastructure of the District Court, Allahabad. Even after almost one-half century the situations in the District Courts of the State are somewhat similar. 56. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that the principal stand taken by the State in its counter-affidavit about the limited resources of the State Government is wholly unacceptable. 57. In addition to above, the State has passed the order after filing of the contempt petition. Previously, the order of the State Government was set aside on the ground that no reason was recorded by the State while rejecting the proposed rule. This time again a bare reading of the impugned order would make it abundantly clear that only conclusions have been recorded without support of any reason. 58. Reasons are the links between the material on which certain conclusions are based. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter of the decision, whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between facts considered and conclusions reached. [See Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and others, (1973) 2 SCC 836 ] 59. The law laid down in Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) has consistently been followed by the Supreme Court. Later, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 , has expanded the judge made law to a new horizon. 60. The present trend is that the reason is considered as heart and soul of an order. Later, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 , has expanded the judge made law to a new horizon. 60. The present trend is that the reason is considered as heart and soul of an order. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Commr., Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Deptt., (1979) 4 SCC 642 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 16) : AIR 1980 SC 1 , referred to Broom’s Legal Maxims, where the principle in Latin runs as follows: “Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex.” The Supreme Court translated the said principle in English version in the following words: “29. ...’reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself’.” 61. The next question is as to what relief the petitioners are entitled for. The petitioners instituted their first writ petition about eighteen years ago in the year 1997. Their writ petition was allowed. In the special appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside on the ground that it was Hon’ble the Chief Justice who had the authority to take the decision. It was observed by the Division Bench that in case Hon’ble the Chief Justice takes a decision, the same shall be approved by the State Government. It is a well-established law that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has very wide discretion to mould the ancillary relief and the petition cannot be thrown out simply on the ground that the proper writ or direction has not been prayed for. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India and others, AIR 1951 SC 41 , K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission and others, AIR 1954 SC 207 , Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and others, (1994) 2 SCC 594 and M. Sudakar v. V. Manoharan and others, (2011) 1 SCC 484 . 62. On a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and the material on the record, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 26th July, 2012 passed by the State Government is unsustainable and it needs to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. 62. On a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and the material on the record, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 26th July, 2012 passed by the State Government is unsustainable and it needs to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. I further find that the end of justice requires that a direction be issued to the State Government to take appropriate steps to approve the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) (Amendment) Rules, 2005 framed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice within six weeks from today. The petitioners shall be entitled to higher pay-scales in terms of the Rules of 2005 and consequential benefits from the year 2005. The arrears of their difference of salary, if any, shall be paid to them within six months after the rules are approved. 63. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.