JUDGMENT : Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Shri N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondents and Shri A. Bimol, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the High Court of Manipur. 2. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the letter dated 14-07-2017 as not sustainable in the eyes of law and also to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the State respondents to extend the benefits of Principal Seat Pay to the employees of the High Court of Manipur along with its arrears within a stipulated period of time. 3.1 Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is an association called "the High Court Employees Association, Manipur" (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners' association") which is formed by the employees of the High Court of Manipur (hereinafter referred to as "this Court") and the present writ petition is being filed by the petitioners' association through its General Secretary who is duly authorized by it. 3.2 On 15-02-2007, the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court wrote a letter to the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur as regards the uniform, better and higher pay scales for the employees of the Principal Seat as well as the outlying benches of the Gauhati High Court enclosing therewith the recommendation of the Committee constituted by the Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court pursuant to a resolution taken at the Chief Justices' conference held in the year, 2002 for having a uniformity in respect of pay structure, recruitment rules etc. and the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur was requested to accept the same for implementation. The aforesaid letter was followed by a letter dated 04-08-2007 addressed to the Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur by the Deputy Registrar (Judl.), Gauhati High Court stating that there were altogether 118 sanctioned posts drawing Assam scale of pay in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench for which it had incurred a sum of Rs. 11,26,258 (Rupees eleven lakh twenty six thousand two hundred and fifty eight) only towards their salaries as on 01-07-2007; that in respect of two posts-the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) manned by the Manipur Judicial Services (MJS) Officers, it had incurred a sum of Rs. 11,26,258 (Rupees eleven lakh twenty six thousand two hundred and fifty eight) only towards their salaries as on 01-07-2007; that in respect of two posts-the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) manned by the Manipur Judicial Services (MJS) Officers, it had incurred a sum of Rs. 75,547/- (Rupees seventy five thousand five hundred and forty seven) only and that since the proposed uniform scale of pay etc. related only to the employees concerned of the Gauhati High Court, the implementation of the new uniform scale of pay w.e.f. 01-07-2007 would incur a sum of Rs. 12,86,295/- (Rupees twelve lakh eighty six thousand two hundred and ninety five) only. On 21-02-2008, the Deputy Registrar (Judl.), Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench wrote a letter to the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur requesting him to expedite the process of the proposed uniform, better and higher scale of pay of the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. 3.3 On 23-03-2010, the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court wrote a letter to the Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench informing that the Government of Assam vide its letter dated 22-03-2010 had conveyed sanction for the revision of scale of pay of the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court w.e.f. 01-01-2006 and that the Chief Justice (Acting) directed that the fixation of pay of the officers and staff of the Principal Seat as well as the outlying benches at Imphal and Shillong be made in the revised scale in accordance with the procedure as laid down in the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 mutatis mutandis. 3.4 The North-Eastern Areas (Re-organization) Act, 1971 came to be amended with an assent being given by the President of India on 04-06-2012. Section 28E thereof provides that the law in force immediately before the commencement of the North-Eastern Areas (Re-organization) and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amendment Act, 2012") with respect to the practice and procedure in the common High Court shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to the High Court of Meghalaya, the High Court of Manipur and the High Court of Tripura. 3.5 On 07-06-2013, the Deputy Registrar (Finance), Gauhati High Court wrote a letter to the Registrar of this Court conveying the sanction for drawal of DA/DR at the enhanced rate as prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 20-05-2013 issued by the Government of Assam for the employees who were/are drawing the pay scale of Government of Assam. In view of the approval of the Government of Manipur vide order dated 26-04-2016 issued by the Under Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur, on 16-06-2016, the Registrar General (i/c) of this Court issued an order to the effect that the enhanced rate of DA/DR, admissible to the employees of the Gauhati High Court, would be admissible to the employees of this Court. 3.6 On 10-08-2016, the Registrar General of this Court wrote a letter to the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur informing that the Acting Chief Justice of this Court had been pleased to convey the approval for adoption of the pay scales and the rules of the Gauhati High Court with some modifications as the pay scales and rules of the employees of this Court for the present, as this Court was/is in the process of formulating its own rules including service conditions and pay scales of the employees and accordingly, a request was made to move the Government of Manipur for approval of the said pay scales and rules of the employees of this Court at the earliest. 3.7 In compliance with the order dated 04-04-2016 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in writ petition being WP(C) No. 1724 of 2015, the L.R. & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department issued a notification dated 16-08-2016 to the effect that the Government of Assam had approved the payment of Principal Seat Pay to the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court as an interim measure. By the said order, it was further ordered that the Principal Seat Pay would be given notionally to the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court w.e.f. 01-01-2006 and it would be counted for arrears from 01-04-2008 in addition to the benefits which the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court might be entitled to as granted to the State Government employees under the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010. The Principal Seat Pay should be paid as a part of the current salary w.e.f. 01-08-2016 and the arrears from 01-04-2008 to 31-07-2016 should be paid in a single installment during the current financial year 2016-2017. 3.8 On 24-08-2016, the General Secretary of the petitioners' association submitted a representation to the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court with a request to send a forwarding letter to the Registry of this Court about the enhancement of pay and allowances by way of giving Principal Seat Pay to the employees of the Gauhati High Court and to make a mention that similar benefits be given to the employees of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, followed by a representation dated 09-09-2016 addressed to the Registrar General of this Court requesting him to look into the matter and take up necessary action to extend the benefits of the Notification dated 16-08-2016 highlighting the points that before the establishment of this Court, the existing employees of this Court were the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and their service conditions were governed by the provisions of the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Services and Conduct) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967"). Referring to its earlier representation, a reminder dated 20-10-2016 was submitted stating that Shri T.Z. Haokip who is presently serving as Sr. A.A. of this Court, was transferred to the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench on 01-03-2012 and has been enjoying the benefits of Principal Seat Pay. On receipt of the said representations, the Registrar General of this Court wrote a letter dated 06-12-2016 to the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur informing that the Gauhati High Court Services Rules, 1967 was applicable to the employees of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and that even after the establishment of this Court w.e.f. 23-03-2013, the same had been adopted with the approval of the Government of Manipur and in view of the provisions of Section 28E of the Amendment Act, 2012, the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 would continue to apply to the members of the petitioners' association. A request was made to the Government of Manipur for doing the needful as per the resolution taken by the Full Court of this Court in its meeting held on 24-10-2016 and to refer the same to it. A request was made to the Government of Manipur for doing the needful as per the resolution taken by the Full Court of this Court in its meeting held on 24-10-2016 and to refer the same to it. Being unsatisfied with the decision taken by the Full Court in its meeting held on 24-10-2016, the petitioners' association submitted a representation dated 03-02-2017 to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court praying for reviewing its resolution. Thereafter, the Registrar General of this Court wrote a letter dated 14-02-2017 to the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur informing that the Notification dated 16-08-2016 was adopted by the Full Court in its meeting held on 07-02-2017 so that the same benefits could be given to the employees of this Court till the relevant rules were finalized with a request to approve it. In reply thereto, the Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur wrote a letter to the Registrar General of this Court on 18-04-2017 informing that the matter was consulted with the Finance Department which had observed that Principal Seat Pay was an initiative of Assam Government keeping in mind the circumstances prevailing there and not in Manipur. On 25-04-2017, the Registrar General of this Court wrote a letter to the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur informing that the reasons for adoption of Principal Seat Pay for the employees of this Court had already been stated in its earlier letters dated 06-02-2016 and 14-02-2017 and that the employees of this Court are still in similar circumstances as those of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Seat and the Finance Department be advised accordingly. On receipt of the said letter dated 25-04-2017, the Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur wrote a letter dated 02-06-2017 to the Registrar General of this Court requesting him to furnish the details of the financial implications in the event of the Principal Seat Pay being granted to the employees of this Court. On receipt of the said letter dated 25-04-2017, the Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur wrote a letter dated 02-06-2017 to the Registrar General of this Court requesting him to furnish the details of the financial implications in the event of the Principal Seat Pay being granted to the employees of this Court. The Registrar General of this Court vide its letter dated 05-06-2017 furnished all the information as required by the Secretary (Law) but on 14-07-2017 the Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur informed the Registrar General of this Court about the decision of the Finance Department to the effect that since this Court came into existence in the year 2013, the Principal Seat Pay would not be applicable to its employees prior to 2013; that the additional financial liability for grant of Principal Seat Pay would be around Rs. 3,31,044 pm and that the arrear would be around Rs. 2.43 crore for the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-05-2017. 4. Being aggrieved by the said letter, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners' association on the inter-alia grounds that as on date, there is no separate service rules for the employees of this Court and that the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 governs the service conditions of the employees of this Court as the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court vide its notification dated 02-08-1985 has notified that the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 shall be mutatis mutandis applicable to the outlying benches of the Gauhati High Court. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar (Finance), Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 07-06-2013 informed the Registrar of this Court conveying the approval of the Gauhati High Court for drawal of DA/DR at the enhanced rate as prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 20-05-2013 which was allowed to be enjoyed by the members of the petitioners' association by the Government of Manipur. Section 28E of the Amendment, Act, 2012 provides for the continuation of the existing rules of the Gauhati High Court to the employees of this Court and without considering the provisions and other relevant laws, the proposal made by the Registrar General of this Court was rejected by the Government of Manipur. Section 28E of the Amendment, Act, 2012 provides for the continuation of the existing rules of the Gauhati High Court to the employees of this Court and without considering the provisions and other relevant laws, the proposal made by the Registrar General of this Court was rejected by the Government of Manipur. Since the members of the petitioners' association are similarly situated with that of the employees working at Gauhati High Court, the benefits enjoyed by the employees of the Gauhati High Court should be extended to the employees of this Court by invoking the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since the Government of Manipur has approved that the employees of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench will be governed by the Gauhati High Court Rues, 1967, they cannot be permitted to say that the benefits of the Principal Seat Pay would be confined only to the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Bench. Such action of the respondents is barred by the principles of estoppels and doctrine of election as their action amounts to blowing hot and cold in the same breath which is not permissible in law. 5. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 wherein it has been stated that the Government of Manipur has taken conscious decision not to extend the benefits of Principal Seat Pay to the employees of this Court as the Government of Manipur did not have sufficient resources or funds to meet the arrears which could be about Rs. 2.43 crore. The decision of the Finance Department to the effect that since this Court came into existence only in the year 2013, the Principal Seat Pay would not be applicable to the employees of this Court prior to 2013. Merely because the employees of this Court are getting less pay and allowances than that of the employees of the Gauhati High Court, it cannot be a ground for grant of Principal Seat Pay. The stand of the Department of Finance as indicated in its separate affidavit is that the Principal Seat Pay was granted to the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court (Principal Seat), Guwahati after lot of deliberations and rounds of discussions and negotiations between the Gauhati High Court and the Government of Assam. The stand of the Department of Finance as indicated in its separate affidavit is that the Principal Seat Pay was granted to the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court (Principal Seat), Guwahati after lot of deliberations and rounds of discussions and negotiations between the Gauhati High Court and the Government of Assam. The scale of pay enjoyed by the employees of this Court at par with the employees of the Gauhati High Court at present is a temporary arrangement due to non-finalisation of the rules since 23-03-2013. After the establishment of this Court, its employees' claim for grant of equal pay scale with that of the employees of the Gauhati High Court is quite unreasonable. Shri T.Z. Haokip cannot be compared with the employees of this Court, as he had served in the Gauhati High Court prior to his transfer to this Court. The volume of work that is shouldered by the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Bench is understood to be more than that of its outlying benches like Kohima, Itanagar, Aizawl. This establishes the rational for such benefits being granted to the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court and in such conditions, it cannot be compared with that of the employees of this Court. With respect to the proposal for grant of Principal Seat Pay to the employees of this Court, a committee was constituted and after an in-depth examination and consideration of the proposal, the Finance Department observed that the adoption of pay structures of Gauhati High Court would not be appropriate and advisable. 6. The short question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the employees of this Court who were the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, will be entitled to Principal Seat Pay which is being paid to the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court, in view of the fact that the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 are still being applied to them. 7. It has been submitted by Shri H.S. Paonam, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner association that since no rules have so far been made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the employees of this Court are governed by the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 and will continue to be governed by them in terms of the provisions of Section 28E of the Amendment Act, 2012. Unless and until the relevant rules are made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the employees of this Court will be entitled to pay and allowances and in particular, the Principal Seat Pay, being enjoyed by the employees of the Gauhati High Court. While issuing the letter dated 14-07-2017 Impugned herein, the Government of Manipur has failed to appreciate that while the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima bench and Tripura bench were enjoying the pay and allowances as prescribed by their respective States, the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal bench and Shillong bench were allowed to enjoy the pay and allowances as prescribed by the Assam Government for the employees of the Principal Bench. In other words, the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Bench, Imphal Bench and Shillong Bench were treated equally and that is the reason why the Government of Meghalaya issued the Notification dated 05-03-2018 extending the benefits of Principal Seat Pay to the employees of the Meghalaya High Court. Shri T.Z. Haokip who had been transferred to this Court in the year, 2012 from the Principal Bench, Guwahati, was/is being allowed to enjoy the Principal Seat pay and the denial of the same to the other employees of this Court is unreasonable and arbitrary. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Gurumoorthy Vs. Accountant General, Assam & Nagaland & Ors., (1971) 2 SCC 137 ; State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. T. Gopalkrishnan Murthi & Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 883 ; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1989) 4 SCC 187 ; State of Maharashtra Vs. Association of Court Stenos, PA, PS & Anr., (2002) 2 SCC 141 and State of West Bengal Vs. Subhash Kumar Chatterjee & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 694 . Shri A. Bimol, Senior Advocate appearing for the High Court of Manipur supported the arguments of Shri H.S. Paonam, Senior Advocate and in addition thereto, he has submitted that the Registrar General of this Court vide its letter dated 10-08-2016 informed the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur that the pay scales and the rules of Gauhati High Court had been adopted with modifications and that the Government of Manipur be moved for approval. The Government of Manipur failed to consider it for grant of approval and therefore, a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Government of Manipur to consider it within a reasonable time. Reliance has been placed by him on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Maharashtra Vs. Association of Court Stenos, PA, PS & Anr., (2002) 2 SCC 141 ; High Court Employees Welfare Assn., Calcutta & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 334 and Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.B. Vohra & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 150 . 8. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Shri N. Kumarjit Singh, the learned Advocate General, Manipur that no rules have been made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice under the provisions of Article 229(2) of the Constitution for which approval of the Government of Manipur is indispensable and since the letters dated 10-08-2016 and 14-02-2017 of the Registrar General of this Court are not the rules as contemplated therein, the question of consideration by the Government of Manipur did not arise. Moreover, when the representations of the petitioners' association were forwarded by this Court, the same were considered by the Government of Manipur which found them to be unjustifiable and therefore, the Government of Manipur expressed its regrets vide its letter dated 14-07-2017 impugned herein. In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of HP. Vs. P.D. Attri & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 217 ; State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. T. Gopalkrishnan Murthi & Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 883 ; State of Maharashtra Vs. Association of Court Stenos, PA, PS & Anr., (2002) 2 SCC 141 ; High Court Employees Welfare Assn., Calcutta & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 334 and Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.B. Vohra & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 150 and State of UP Vs. Section Officer Brotherhood & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 286 . 9.1 It is not in dispute that the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court are governed by the rules made by the Chief Justice of that High Court under the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution of India. Article 229 reads as under: "229. Section Officer Brotherhood & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 286 . 9.1 It is not in dispute that the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court are governed by the rules made by the Chief Justice of that High Court under the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution of India. Article 229 reads as under: "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 services 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 authorized 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 the Fund." The issues relating to the determination of the power and authority of the Chief Justice of a High Court in the matter of appointments of officers and servants of that court and their service conditions, have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to some of them in order to re-visit the principles laid down therein. 9.2 In M. Gurumoorthy case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "10. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to some of them in order to re-visit the principles laid down therein. 9.2 In M. Gurumoorthy case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "10. We may now refer to the constitutional provisions for determining the power and authority of the Chief Justice of a High Court in the matter of appointments of officers and servants of that Court. Clause (1) of Article 229 provides that 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 i.e. his nominee. The proviso empowers the Governor of the State to require by Rule in certain cases to make appointments after consultation with the State Public Service Commission. Clause (2) of the article contains two important provisions. The first is that 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 or his nominee. This is, however, subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State. The second is that the Rules so far as they relate to salaries, allowances and pensions require the approval of the Governor. Clause (3) declares that the administrative expenses of a High Court including all salaries, allowances etc. in respect of officers and servants of the Court shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State. Under Article 202 the Governor shall, in respect of every financial year, cause to be laid before the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State a statement, of, the estimated receipts and expenditure for that year. Under clause (2) the estimates of expenditure shall show separately: (a) the sums required to meet expenditure described by the Constitution as expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State; and (b) the sums required to meet other expenditure. Clause (3) gives the expenditure which shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of each State. Clause (f) reads - any other expenditure declared by this Constitution or by the Legislature of the State by law to be so charged. Clause (3) gives the expenditure which shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of each State. Clause (f) reads - any other expenditure declared by this Constitution or by the Legislature of the State by law to be so charged. Under Article 203, the estimates which relate to expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State shall not be submitted to the vote of the Legislative Assembly. Article 204 relates to Appropriation Bills. The bill to provide for appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund of the State must include the expenditure charged on that Fund. Clause (2) prevents any amendment being proposed to an Appropriation Bill which will have the effect, inter alia, of varying the amount or altering the destination of any grant or varying the amount of expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State. Article 146 contains provisions relating to officers and servants of the Supreme Court in terms analogous to Article 229 the other provisions being also similar." 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. 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). 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. Even under the Government of India Act the power to make rules relating to the conditions of service of the staff of the High Court vested in the Chief Justice of the Court under Section 242(4), read with Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935. By way of contrast reference may be made to Article 148 relating to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Clause (5) provides: "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and of any law made by Parliament the conditions of service of persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department and the administrative powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the President after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General." 9.3 In State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthi & Ors. case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after relying upon the observations made in M. Gurumoorthy case, held: "6. Leaving aside the proviso to clause (1) of Article 229 in the matter of appointments of officers and servants of a High Court the power is of the Chief Justice or of such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct. Under clause (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 are a charge upon the Consolidated Fund of the State. Any fees or monies taken by the Court formed part of that fund. There is no separate fund or power to raise it at the disposal of the High Court for the purposes of meeting the salaries etc. of the High Court staff. In this context clause (2) of Article 229 may now be read with the proviso appended thereto. Any fees or monies taken by the Court formed part of that fund. There is no separate fund or power to raise it at the disposal of the High Court for the purposes of meeting the salaries etc. of the High Court staff. In this context clause (2) of Article 229 may now be read with the proviso appended thereto. 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." 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. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case and in the background of the conditions which are prevalent in other States Government could have been well advised to accord approval to the suggestion of the Chief Justice, as the suggestion was nothing more than to equate the pay scales of the High Court staff with those of the equivalent posts in the Secretariat. That merely because the Government is not right in accepting the Chief Justice's view and refusing to accord the approval is no ground for holding that by a writ of mandamus the Government may be directed to accord the approval. The High Court staff has not always been treated at par with the Secretariat staff in the matters of scales of pay. The matter has been taken up in the Chief Justices' Conference and with several State Governments. Most of them have acceded to the request of the High Court to bring its staff at par with the Secretariat staff in the matter of pay etc. It is, however, not possible to take the view that merely because the State Government does not see its way to give the required approval it will justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution as if the refusal of the State Government was ultra vires or made mala fide and arbitrarily." 9.4 In State of H.P. Vs. P.D. Attri & Ors. case, the question was as to whether the State of H.P. has to follow every change made in the State of Punjab and Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable in the State of Punjab and Haryana. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while answering the question in the negative, held: "5. The case of the respondents is not based on any constitutional or any other legal provisions when they claim parity with the posts similarly designated in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and their pay scales from the same date. They do not allege any violation of any constitutional provision or any other provision of law. They say it is so because of "accepted policy and common practice" which, according to them, are undisputed. We do not think we can import such vague principles while interpreting the provisions of law. India is a union of States. Each State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution. One State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the other State or if it had adopted the same rules and regulations, it is not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other State. Each State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution. One State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the other State or if it had adopted the same rules and regulations, it is not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other State. The question then arises before us is whether the State of Himachal Pradesh has to follow every change brought in the States of Punjab and Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to the employees in the States of Punjab and Haryana. The answer has to be in the negative. No argument is needed for that as anyone having basic knowledge of the Constitution would not argue otherwise. True, the State as per "policy and practice" has been adopting the same pay scales for the employees of the High Court as sanctioned from time to time for the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it may even now follow to grant pay scales but is certainly not bound to follow. No law commands it to do so. 6. The State of Punjab was reorganised into States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Himachal Pradesh, to begin with, was a Union Territory and was given the status of full statehood in 1970. Since employees of the composite State of Punjab were taken in various departments of the State of Himachal Pradesh in order to safeguard the seniority, pay scales, etc., the State of Himachal Pradesh followed the Punjab pattern of pay scales. After attaining the status of full statehood, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh formulated its own rules and regulations for its employees. It adopted the pattern of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules of their employees. When the Punjab and Haryana High Court gave effect to a certain portion of its Rules from 25-9-1985 by notification dated 23-1-1986 as a result of which redesignation of the posts of the Senior Translators and Junior Translators were equated to the posts in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, in the Himachal Pradesh High Court similar effect was given to in its rules for its employees. When the Punjab and Haryana High Court gave effect to those rules from 23-1-1975, the State Government did not agree to the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to follow the same suit. It is true that till now, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has been following the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it may go on following those rules as may be amended by the Punjab and Haryana High Court from time to time, but certainly it is not bound to so follow. No law commands the State Government to follow the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the employees of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. That being the position, it is not necessary for us to examine different qualifications for appointment to the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators that may exist between the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court and also as to the mode of their recruitment/placement in the service. Moreover, any change in the pay scale following the Punjab and Haryana High Court can set in motion chain reaction for other employees which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation among various categories of employees. Rules of each High Court have to be examined independently. There cannot be any such law that the Himachal Pradesh High Court has to suo motu follow the same rules as applicable to the employees working in the Punjab and Haryana High Court." 9.5 Some issues relating to the function of the Chief Justice of India to frame rules under Article 146(2) of the Constitution of India came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for consideration in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association Vs. Union of India & Ors. case, when they filed writ petitions praying for their pay hike. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "111. The ultimate authority in this regard being the Chief Justice of India, he alone is competent to make, or authorise the making of the rules. Until the rules are made by him (or by a Judge or officer of the court authorised by him), the question of approval or disapproval by the President does not arise. The ultimate authority in this regard being the Chief Justice of India, he alone is competent to make, or authorise the making of the rules. Until the rules are made by him (or by a Judge or officer of the court authorised by him), the question of approval or disapproval by the President does not arise. In making the rules, the Chief Justice would no doubt take into account the recommendations of the Pay Commission or of any other body of experts he may have consulted. He will also take into account the objections raised by the Government to the suggestions made by the Registrar General who, of course, acted as an agent of the Chief Justice. But the refusal of the Government to accede to the proposals of the Registrar General is not a refusal of the President under Article 146(2), for such refusal or approval can arise only upon submission to him of duly framed rules. 112. It is of course true that no court will direct the President to grant approval, for a writ of mandamus will not lie to compel a person to exercise a legislative function in a particular fashion [see A.K. Roy v. Union of India; Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, H.P. (SCC p. 75 : SCR p. 945)]. But the President must, upon submission to him of the Rules made by the Chief Justice of India under Article 146(2), exercise his mind as to whether or not he would grant approval, and, without undue delay, come to a decision on the point: see Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, Supreme Court of India v. Union of India. In the present case, the time for decision by the President has of course not come. 113. The approval of the President is not a matter of mere formality. It would, of course, be wrong to say that in no case can the President, which means the Government, refuse to accord approval. However, once the rules are duly framed by so high a constitutional dignitary as the Chief Justice of India, it will only be in the truly exceptional cases that the President would withhold assent. It would, of course, be wrong to say that in no case can the President, which means the Government, refuse to accord approval. However, once the rules are duly framed by so high a constitutional dignitary as the Chief Justice of India, it will only be in the truly exceptional cases that the President would withhold assent. It is but proper and appropriate that, in view of the spirit of the constitutional provision, approval would be accorded in all but the exceptional cases see the observations of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishna Murthi. In this connection, the observation of Mukharji, J., in State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co. is apposite: (SCC p. 104, para 86) "The exercise of power whether legislative or administrative will be set aside if there is manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary. Similarly, if the power has been exercised on a non-consideration or non-application of mind to relevant factors the exercise of power will be regarded as manifestly erroneous. If a power (whether legislative or administrative) is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are patently erroneous, such exercise of power will stand vitiated." 9.6 In State of Maharashtra Vs. Association of Court Stenos, PA, PS & Ors. case, the question was as to whether the High Court in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can itself examine the nature of work discharged by its employees and issue a mandamus directing a particular pay scale to be given to such employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon its earlier decisions, held that it is no doubt true that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is an equitable principle but it would not be appropriate for the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the nature of work discharged by the staff attached to the Hon'ble Judges of the court and direct grant of any particular pay scale to such employees, as that would be a matter for the learned Chief Justice within his jurisdiction under article 229(2) of the Constitution. The Hon'ble supreme Court hasten to add that this may not be construed as total ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to examine the nature of duties of an employee and apply the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' in an appropriate case. 9.7 In High Court Employees Welfare association, Calcutta & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. case, a draft rules proposed by a Committee consisting of five Judges, Calcutta High Court was approved by the Chief Justice but when it was forwarded to the Governor for approval, the State Government refused to grant approval on few grounds including that of financial inability. Despite several discussions being held between the Chief Justice and the State Government, the State Government expressed its reservations on the ground of financial inability. When the matter came up for consideration, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "10. In the instant case, the primary reason for refusal of grant of approval by the Governor has been the Government's claim of inability to bear the financial burden imposed by the Draft Rules. The Governor, under Article 229(2) has the power to refuse grant of approval, provided there is "very good reason" for the same. It cannot be said that there has been no exchange of views between the Chief Justice and the State Government. The correspondence between the State Government and the Chief Justice commencing from 21-11-1998 reveals sufficient degree of exchange of ideas. During the negotiation between the Government and the Chief Justice, both sides expressed their respective views on the matter. However, there is no meeting point. 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. Hence, a Special Pay Commission consisting of Judges and Administrators shall be constituted by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Government to make a report and on receipt of such report, the Chief Justice and the Government shall thrash out the problem and work out an appropriate formula in regard to pay scales to be fixed for the High Court employees. Let such action be taken within six months from today." 9.8 In Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.B. Vohra & Ors. case, the question was as to how far and to what extent a writ of or in the nature of mandamus should issue directing the Union of India to pay salary to the officers of the High Court in a particular scale of pay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to its various decisions, held: "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. Mandamus vis-à-vis Article 229(2) of the Constitution 12. Mandamus literally means a command. The essence of mandamus in England was that it was a royal command issued by the King's Bench (now Queen's Bench) directing performance of a public legal duty. 13. A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself. A writ of mandamus is issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed and/or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in discharge of a public duty or by operation of law. The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted. 51. The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted. 51. Having regard to the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of this Court, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the recommendations of the Chief Justice should ordinarily be approved by the State and refusal thereof must be for strong and adequate reasons. In this case the appellants even addressed themselves on the recommendations made by the High Court. They could not have treated the matter lightly. It is unfortunate that the recommendations made by a high functionary like the Chief Justice were not promptly attended to and the private respondents had to file a writ petition. The question as regards fixation of a revision of the scale of pay of the High Court being within the exclusive domain of the Chief Justice of the High Court, subject to the approval, the State is expected to accept the same recommendations save and except for good and cogent reasons. 52. The High Court, however, should not ordinarily issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus and ought to refer the matter back to the Central/State Government with suitable directions pointing out the irrelevant factors which are required to be excluded in taking the decision and the relevant factors which are required to be considered therefore. The statutory duties should be allowed to be performed by the statutory authorities at the first instance. In the event, however, the Chief Justice of the High Court and the State are not ad idem, the matter should be discussed and an effort should be made to arrive at a consensus. 53. We are further of the opinion that only in exceptional cases the High Court may interfere on the judicial side, but ordinarily it would not do so. Even if an occasion arises for the High Court to interfere on its judicial side, the jurisdiction of the High Court should be exercised with care and circumspection." The above observations were reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP Vs. Section Office Brotherhood & Anr. case. 9.9 In State of West Bengal Vs. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "14. Section Office Brotherhood & Anr. case. 9.9 In State of West Bengal Vs. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "14. This Court time and again cautioned that the court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compel the Government to implement the same. Equation of posts and equation of salaries is a matter which is best left to an expert body. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. Even the recommendations of the Pay Commissions are subject to acceptance or rejection, the courts cannot compel the State to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commissions though it is an expert body. The State in its wisdom and in furtherance of its valid policy may or may not accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission. (See Union of India v. Arun Jyoti Kundu and State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn.) It is no doubt true, the constitutional courts clothed with power of judicial review have jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have remedy only if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction while fixing the pay scale for a given post." From the above decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is absolutely clear that under the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of a High Court is conferred wide power as regards the appointment of officers and servants of that High Court and making rules to regulate their service conditions. Clause (2) provides that 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 or his nominees subject to what has been provided in the proviso thereto that so far as they relate to salaries, allowances and pensions, they require the approval of the Governor. In other words, the Chief Justice is the supreme authority in this regard and no one can interfere with it except the limited extent mentioned therein. The approval of the Governor as envisaged in Article 229 is not a mere formality but it should be ordinarily and generally accorded as a matter of course. In other words, the Chief Justice is the supreme authority in this regard and no one can interfere with it except the limited extent mentioned therein. The approval of the Governor as envisaged in Article 229 is not a mere formality but it should be ordinarily and generally accorded as a matter of course. In other words, in view of the spirit of the constitutional provision, the approval should be accorded in all and only in exceptional cases, the approval can be refused on good and adequate reasons. 10. It is also not in dispute that the members of the petitioners' association are the employees of this Court and prior to the establishment of a separate and independent High Court of Manipur, they were the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal bench who were governed by the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 and were enjoying the pay and allowances given to the employees of the Principal Bench as is evident from the letters dated 23-03-2010 and 07-06-2013 of the Gauhati High Court. Even today, since appropriate rules have not been made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, the members of the petitioners' association are still governed by the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 in terms of the provisions of Section 28E of the Amendment Act, 2012 which provides that the law in force immediately before the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2012 with respect to the practice and procedure in the common High Court shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to this Court. The word "law" as mentioned in Section 28E is qualified by the expression "practice and procedure" which is not defined in the Amendment Act, 2012. It means that all laws are not applicable but only the law in force prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2012 with respect to practice and procedure shall apply in relation to this Court. 11. The ancillary issue is as to whether the benefits that are being enjoyed by the members of the petitioners' association as per the existing rules namely the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967, will include the Principal Seat Pay or not. The answer will be in the negative, as long as the same is not approved by the Government of Manipur. The ancillary issue is as to whether the benefits that are being enjoyed by the members of the petitioners' association as per the existing rules namely the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967, will include the Principal Seat Pay or not. The answer will be in the negative, as long as the same is not approved by the Government of Manipur. It may be noted that Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution provides that 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 or his nominee but the proviso thereto states that 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. The members of the petitioners' association being the employees of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, were governed by the rules made by the Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court but their salaries, allowances etc. were/are being paid by the Government of Manipur. Since their salaries were/are being paid by the Government of Manipur, whenever any change was made in the existing rules as regards the salaries, allowances etc., the approval of the Governor of Manipur was required to be obtained for it. The entitlement of such benefits cannot be said to be automatic without the approval being given by the Government of Manipur. There are few epitomes in that regard, as is seen from the past events. Firstly, after the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 being made, the Government of Assam vide its letter dated 22-03-2010 conveyed its sanction to the revision of scale of pay of the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court and accordingly, the fixation of pay of the officers and staff of the Principal Bench as well as outlying benches at Imphal and Shillong was directed by the Gauhati High Court to be revised in accordance with the procedure as laid down therein mutatis mutandis. Secondly, the approval of the Government of Manipur was sought for and was duly granted as is evident from the order dated 16-06-2016 issued by the Registrar (i/c) of this Court, when the drawal of DA/DR at the enhanced rate was to be granted in terms of the Office memorandum dated 20-05-2013 issued by the Government of Assam. Secondly, the approval of the Government of Manipur was sought for and was duly granted as is evident from the order dated 16-06-2016 issued by the Registrar (i/c) of this Court, when the drawal of DA/DR at the enhanced rate was to be granted in terms of the Office memorandum dated 20-05-2013 issued by the Government of Assam. Thirdly, after the pay scales and the rules of Gauhati High Court having been adopted by this Court till the completion of finalizing its own rules including the conditions of service and pay scales, a letter dated 10-08-2016 was addressed to the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur requesting it to move the Government of Manipur for grant of approval. These circumstances clearly demonstrate that even though the members of the petitioners' association were/are governed by the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967, for any change that was made therein as regards the salaries, pay scales etc. involving financial implications, the approval of the Government of Manipur was always sought for. It is thus seen that the approval of the Government of Manipur is a must and is indispensable as envisaged under the proviso to Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India, as and when certain benefits over and above what was being enjoyed by the members of the petitioners' association as per the existing rules, were to be granted. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners' association that the members of the petitioners' association are entitled to Principal Seat Pay, has no merit and cannot be countenanced by this Court. The benefits of Principal Seat Pay cannot be automatically extended to the employees of this Court without the same being approved by the Government of Manipur. 12. As has been stated hereinabove, since appropriate steps are being taken by this Court to formulate its own rules, the pay scales and the rules of the Gauhati High Court have been adopted for the present and are made to continue to apply to the members of the petitioners' association. 12. As has been stated hereinabove, since appropriate steps are being taken by this Court to formulate its own rules, the pay scales and the rules of the Gauhati High Court have been adopted for the present and are made to continue to apply to the members of the petitioners' association. In compliance with the order dated 04-04-2016 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and after several rounds of discussions held between the Government of Assam and the Gauhati High Court, the Government of Assam issued a Notification dated 16-08-2016 for payment of Principal Seat pay to the officers & staff of the Gauhati High Court, as an interim measure, which was to be paid and are being paid in addition to their existing emoluments. The petitioners' association being of the view that the said notification dated 16-08-2016 would apply to their cases also, approached this court by way of a representation dated 09-09-2016 followed by a reminder dated 20-10-2016 praying for taking appropriate steps for extension of the benefits contained in the said notification. Pursuant to a resolution dated 24-10-2016 of the full court, the representation of the petitioners' association was forwarded to the Government of Manipur for adoption or grant of approval. Being not satisfied with the resolution of the full court, the petitioners' association vide its representation dated 03-02-2017 approached this court again for re-consideration of the matter and after the matter being re-considered, the full court in its meeting held on 07-02-2017 adopted the notification dated 16-08-2016. The Registrar General of this Court vide its letter dated 14-02-2017 informed the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur about the resolution for obtaining approval from the Government of Manipur. Thereafter, certain information was called for by the Department of Law from this Court as regards the justification for grant of Principal Seat Pay and the financial implication which was furnished by this Court on 05-06-2017. However, the Department of Law, Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 14-07-2017, impugned herein, informed the Registrar General of this Court to the effect that the proposal was regretted on account of having no justification and of involving huge amount. However, the Department of Law, Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 14-07-2017, impugned herein, informed the Registrar General of this Court to the effect that the proposal was regretted on account of having no justification and of involving huge amount. On perusal of the said letter dated 14-07-2017, three reasons on the basis of which the proposal was rejected by the Government of Manipur, can be discerned from it-one, as the expression "Principal Seat Pay" suggests, it would not be applicable to the employees of this Court; two, Shri T.Z. Haokip was given the benefit because he had served at Principal Bench and three, a huge amount of money would be involved. It is thus seen that while considering the proposal of this court, the Government of Manipur has failed to consider some relevant circumstances which are given as under: (a) The Committee constituted by the Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court vide Notification dated 18-09-2003, expressed its view in the report that the practice followed till date of pegging the pay scales of the High Court employees with that of their counterparts in the State secretariat was not justified at all. While making the report, the Committee referred to and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. State of West Bengal, (2004) 1 SCC 334 wherein it was observed as under: "The Government will have to bear in mind the special nature of work done in the High Court of which the Chief Justice and his colleagues alone could really appreciate. If the Govt. does not desire to meet the needs of the High Court, the administration of the High Court will face severe crisis". This special nature of work done in the High Court had not been taken into account by the Government of Manipur and in particular, the Finance Department while considering the proposal. (b) As mandated under the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution of India and keeping in mind the unique nature of service rendered by the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court, the Chief Justice made the Gauhati High Court (Revised Pay) Rules, 2013, providing for revised pay and allowances to them, which was forwarded to Government of Assam for approval. While the deliberations were going on for quite some time between the Gauhati High Court and the Government of Assam, this concept of Principal Seat Pay was formulated by the Finance Department, Government of Assam which would be payable to the officers and staff over and above the existing pay scales being drawn by them. The Gauhati High Court in its order dated 04-04-2016 issued directions as regards the manner as to how the Principal Seat Pay was to be paid to its employees. Before a consensus could be arrived at, the need to re-visit the Rules, 2013 became necessary when the State Government employees were provided with the revised pay scales as per the recommendation of 7th Assam Pay and Productivity Commission. Therefore, while disposing of the writ petition, the Gauhati High Court vide its order dated 06-04-2017 directed that after the exercise being completed, the same be forwarded to the State Government which will in turn take appropriate decision and till then, the benefits extended to the State Government employees by the Government of Assam, be extended to the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court with the Principal Seat Pay being paid to them in addition thereto. In other words, the concept of Principal Seat Pay was evolved with the idea that the officers and staff of the High Court ought to be given a little higher pay and allowances than their counter-parts in the State Secretariat in view of the unique nature of service rendered by them. (c) The Government of Manipur appears to have given too much emphasis on the expression "Principal Seat" which is incorrect. The concept of Principal Seat Pay was evolved by the Government of Assam considering the unique nature of service, rendered by the employees of the Gauhati High Court, which is common to all employees of the Gauhati High Court irrespective of its benches. The expression "Principal Seat Pay" had to be used, as the Government of Assam was concerned with the Principal Seat only and it could be adopted, as had been done earlier in the past, by the outlying Benches at Imphal and Shillong whose employees were enjoying the pay and allowances as prescribed by the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 with approval being granted by the concerned State Government. The other outlying Benches at Tripura, Nagaland & Mizoram were not concerned with it because the pay given to their employees as equivalent to their counter-parts in the secretariat enjoying central pay scale, exceeded the master scale prevalent in Assam. Therefore, the Government of Meghalaya which is similarly situated with the Government of Manipur in this regard, had adopted the concept of Principal Seat Pay and had issued a Notification dated 05-03-2018 extending the benefits thereof to the officers and staff of the High Court of Meghalaya. There appears to be no reason as to why such benefits be denied to the officers and staff of this Court and in particular, the members of the petitioners' association who are similarly situated and are rendering similar service, when two State Governments have applied their minds on the subject matter and have taken appropriate decision thereon. (d) The financial inability on the part of the Government of Manipur cannot be the sole ground for denial of such benefits to the employees of this Court. The Government of Manipur being a welfare institution, ought to act fairly and reasonably. The employees of the High Court are involved in the march to securing justice to the citizens of the country as envisaged in the preamble of the Constitution. The denial of such benefits for the sake of denial may lead to delay in the delivery of justice. The stand of the Government of Manipur that the duty and responsibility being shouldered by the employees of the Gauhati High Court at Principal Bench is different from that of the one shouldered by the employees of its outlying Bench at Imphal and therefore, the Principal Seat Pay cannot be extended to the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, now of this court, appears to be misconceived one. In other words, it may be noted that the volume of work was not the basis on which the Principal Seat Pay was granted to the employees of the Gauhati High Court and the High Court of Meghalaya. In other words, it may be noted that the volume of work was not the basis on which the Principal Seat Pay was granted to the employees of the Gauhati High Court and the High Court of Meghalaya. In fact, the reason for evolving the concept of the Principal Seat Pay was not based on the difference of duty and responsibility being performed & discharged by the employees of Gauhati High Court, Principal Bench and its outlying Benches but was definitely based on the unique nature of service rendered by them which is common throughout India, because of which it was resolved in the Chief Justices' conference held in the year, 2002 that the question of uniformity in pay structure and nomenclature of the High Court employees throughout India be taken up by the respective Chief Justice of the High Court with the State Governments. It may further be noted that after the report being submitted by the Committee constituted by the Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court, the Government of Manipur was requested by the Gauhati High Court vide its letter dated 15-02-2007 to accept and implement it. A year later, a reminder dated 21-02-2008 was addressed to the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur with a request to expedite the process of the proposed uniform, better and higher pay scales for the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. But this Court is not aware of what has happened to it, as there is no any material on record to show about the actions being taken by the Government of Manipur in that regard. (e) Technically Shri T.Z. Haokip is not similarly situated with the members of the petitioners' association, in the sense that he was appointed as an employee of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Bench and was transferred to the outlying Bench at Imphal only in the year, 2012, while the members of the petitioners' association were appointed as employees of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench whose salaries were/are being paid by the Government of Manipur. But since the Principal Seat pay was formulated keeping in mind the unique nature of service rendered by the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Bench, there is no reason as to why the case of the petitioners' association should not be considered for grant of it for the reason that they do also render similar service. But since the Principal Seat pay was formulated keeping in mind the unique nature of service rendered by the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Bench, there is no reason as to why the case of the petitioners' association should not be considered for grant of it for the reason that they do also render similar service. In other words, so far as the unique nature of service is concerned, the employees of the Gauhati High Court and that of this Court are similarly situated and can be given similar scale of pay and allowances in the manner as has been done in the case of Shri T.Z. Haokip. 13. Since the letter dated 14-07-2017 has been issued by the Government of Manipur without considering the aforesaid circumstances, the same is unreasonable and is accordingly bad in law. However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1989) 4 SCC 187 and Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.B. Vohra & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 150 , this Court in exercise of power and jurisdiction conferred under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the Government of Manipur to extend the benefits of the Principal Seat Pay to the employees of this Court. But this Court is of the view that it can certainly issue directions directing the Government of Manipur to re-consider the matter keeping in mind and taking into account the circumstances mentioned in the preceding para and take a decision accordingly. 14. But this Court is of the view that it can certainly issue directions directing the Government of Manipur to re-consider the matter keeping in mind and taking into account the circumstances mentioned in the preceding para and take a decision accordingly. 14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed and consequently, the letter dated 14-07-2017 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur is quashed and set aside with the following directions: (a) The Government of Manipur shall constitute a High Power Committee consisting of the Registrar General, High Court of Manipur; the Secretary/Commissioner/Principal Secretary to the Government of Manipur, Finance Department and the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, to look into the matter keeping in mind the circumstances as mentioned in para 12 above; (b) The High Power Committee shall submit a report within thirty days from the date of its constitution to the Government of Manipur with a copy thereof being endorsed to this Court; (c) After the report being submitted by the High Power Committee, the Government of Manipur and in particular, the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court shall thrash out the problem and work out an amicable solution.