JUDGMENT : T.R. RAVI, J. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P15 and to declare that the Private Secretary to the Chief Justice under the Kerala High Court Service is entitled to the scale of pay equivalent to that of Joint Registrar in accordance with Ext.P3 Rules framed by the Honourable the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution of India in view of Exts.P8 to P13. Consequential reliefs are also prayed for. 2. The counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C) No.25933 of 2017, which had been filed by the then Private Secretary to the Chief Justice. In that judgment, this Court directed the Government of Kerala to reconsider the recommendation made by the Honourable the Chief Justice of Kerala, in the light of the remarks contained in Ext.P6 recommendation dated 06.11.2015 of the Honourable the Chief Justice, and issue appropriate orders with respect to the pay scale of the Private Secretary to the Chief Justice as expeditiously as possible. Pursuant to the said judgment, the Government issued Ext.P9 order on 06.12.2021, in which it was ordered that the Government, after examining the matter in detail, was pleased to sanction hike in the scale of pay of the former Private Secretary to the Chief Justice to that of Joint Registrar as “Personal Scale”. Subsequently, a stand was taken that the said scale applies only to the then incumbent. 3. On 21.06.2022, the Registrar of this Court had addressed the Government by Ext.P10 as directed by the Honourable the Chief Justice, wherein it was pointed out that the denial of the scale of pay which has been granted as per Ext.P9 to the successor in the post was not proper. The Government was also requested to grant the scale of pay of Rs.85000-117600 (pre-revised) to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2020. 4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25933 of 2017 had filed Contempt Case (C) No.2082 of 2021, which came up for consideration on 20.01.2023, and by Ext.P11 judgment, the contempt case was closed after noting the submission of the Sr. Government Pleader that what is directed is not a “personal pay”, but scale of pay to the post, and the benefits of which have been granted to the petitioner therein. The above judgment would clearly show that the intention in Ext.P9 was to grant the scale applicable to the Joint Registrar. 5. Government Pleader that what is directed is not a “personal pay”, but scale of pay to the post, and the benefits of which have been granted to the petitioner therein. The above judgment would clearly show that the intention in Ext.P9 was to grant the scale applicable to the Joint Registrar. 5. Thereafter, the Government passed Ext.P12 order dated 13.01.2023, reiterating that the Government was pleased to grant the monetary benefits of personal scale sanctioned to the former Private Secretary to the Chief Justice, similar to that of the Joint Registrar with effect from 01.07.2014. On 30.03.2023, the Registrar of this Court again addressed the Government as per Ext.P14, pointing out the judgments in W.P.(C) No.25933 of 2017 and Contempt Case (C) No.2082 of 2021 and the admission by the Government that the pay scale is not personal but to the post, and informing that the Hounourable the Chief Justice had directed the Registrar to reiterate the request to sanction the scale of pay to the petitioner from the date of his appointment i.e., 01.01.2020, at the earliest. On 31.07.2023, the Government addressed the Registrar General by Ext.P15, wherein it is stated as follows: “In inviting attention to the reference cited, I am directed to inform you that the post of private Secretary to Chief Justice cannot be compared with the post of Joint Registrar which is a post with administrative powers. The above two posts belong to two different cadres and the method of appointment and qualifications are also different. However Government had agreed to accept the demand for scale hike to Sri. N. Mahadevan former PS to Chief Justice to that of Joint Registrar as personal scale, taking into account of the fact that there is only one such post and the financial commitment involved is only nominal and also by considering the length of service of the incumbent. The successor of Sri. N. Mahadevan in the post of PS to Chief Justice has a shorter period of service. It may also be noted that in the 11 th pay revision, the post of Private secretary to Chief Justice has been sanctioned the scale of pay of 1,07,800-1,60,000 which is the corresponding revision of 77400-115200 as recommended by the pay Revision Commission and also by the Judges Committee. It may also be noted that in the 11 th pay revision, the post of Private secretary to Chief Justice has been sanctioned the scale of pay of 1,07,800-1,60,000 which is the corresponding revision of 77400-115200 as recommended by the pay Revision Commission and also by the Judges Committee. Hence the present proposal for scale hike to the post of Private Secretary to Chief Justice deserves no merit and so the same cannot be agreed to”. It is very unfortunate that the Additional Chief Secretary to Government has stated that the proposal for hike of salary of the Private Secretary to the Chief Justice ‘deserves no merit and the same cannot be agreed to’. The above statement is totally against the content and spirit of Article 229 of the Constitution of India . 6. In Ext.P8 judgment, this Court had extracted the following passage from the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra and Ors. [2019 (4) SCT 360 (SC)]: “ 19. It seems to us that the proviso to 229(2) (as also Article 146), does not reflect an architecture of hierarchy. We think that the correct constitutional approach is one of comity between different institutions working under the Constitution. The emphasis is not on the supremacy of one institution or demarcating the boundaries of the other. It is about ensuring institutional integrity of one while respecting the functional domain of the other. These provisions are meant to facilitate a dialogue of governance between high constitutional functionaries. A healthy dialogue, perhaps, even a debate is necessary for an efficient constitutional polity. The constitutional vision is not to draw “lakshman rekhas” between constitutional functionaries; its command is for the constitutional functionaries to efficiently coordinate to best achieve constitutional goals. It is this constitutional essence that was ignored when the request of the Ld. Chief Justice was not even placed before the Governor. 20. That independence of Judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution is now well entrenched. The Constitution has insulated the Judiciary from outside influences both by the Executive and legislature. Article 223 to 234 in Chapter VI in part VI of the Constitution dealing with the Courts below the High Courts also show that the Constitution makers were equally keen to insulate even Subordinate Judiciary. The Constitution has insulated the Judiciary from outside influences both by the Executive and legislature. Article 223 to 234 in Chapter VI in part VI of the Constitution dealing with the Courts below the High Courts also show that the Constitution makers were equally keen to insulate even Subordinate Judiciary. Independence of Judiciary takes within its sweep independence of the individual Judges in relation to their appointments, tenure, payment of salaries and also non-removal except by way of impeachment. An integral part of Independence of Judiciary', as a constitutional value is the 'Institutional Independence' i.e. the aspect concerning the financial freedom or autonomy which the judiciary must possess and enjoy. This effective involvement of the judicial branch in budgeting, staff and infrastructure has also been recognized by the international community. 25. Adequate budgeting so as to meet the judiciary's work demands, so as to ensure proper, infrastructure and facilities is integral to judicial functioning. It that sense, it is an aspect of judicial independence. That independence of Judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution is by now well entrenched. An integral part of 'Independence of Judiciary', as a constitutional value is the 'Institutional Independence' i.e. the aspect concerning the financial freedom or autonomy which the judiciary must possess and enjoy. 26. The scheme of Article 229 of the Constitution of India obviously requires a joint consideration of the proposal which the Chief Justice may make in regard to appointments, conditions of services, etc., in accordance with the Rules. Undoubtedly, if the Chief Justice takes a decision which has financial implications and that decision cannot be questioned by any authority, the financial implications which such decision may have imposed, should receive due consideration at the hands of the State Government and eventually the Governor”. 7. When an earlier proposal for hiking the salary of the Private Secretary to the Chief Justice to that of Joint Registrar had already been addressed by the Honourable the Chief Justice and, the same was accepted, the issue should have rested there and there was no real scope for a further investigation into whether every successor in the office should be granted a pay scale equivalent to that of the Joint Registrar. It is apparent that, with full knowledge of the above position, the Government had taken a stand before this Court, as reflected in Ext.P11 judgment, that what is directed in Ext.P9 order was not “personal scale” but scale of pay to the post. Once a pay scale is fixed for the post, it should be followed with respect to the successors in that office. 8. The petitioner herein had filed Con.Case (C) No.406 of 2024 before this Court, and the said case was disposed of on 22.08.2025. This Court closed the contempt case in view of the pendency of this writ petition, with the following observations: “2. Hence, even though I find that the claim for pay scale made by the petitioner is justified, in the facts narrated above, I do not think that a contempt proceeding can be initiated against the respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Even though I take note of the contentions regarding the maintainability of the contempt case as justified to some extent, there are some aspects which cannot be countenanced, in particular, the contentions taken in paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit. The respondent, who is only an Additional Chief Secretary of the Government of Kerala cannot be heard to make the submission stated in the said paragraph. It is unbecoming of the respondent to comment on the decision of the Hon’ble Chief Justice or the recommendations made by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and take up a contention that the post of the Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice cannot be compared with the post of the Joint Registrar and the two posts belonged to two different cadres and the method of appointment of petitioner was different and hence there is no justification for equating the pay scales. The statement regarding the pay scale being a personal pay scale to the former incumbent is also totally unwarranted particularly in view of the stand taken before this Court on behalf of the Government, by the then Government Pleader, that it cannot be treated as a personal scale and it can only be treated as a scale applicable to the post. The Contempt Case is closed with the above observation, hoping that the same would be given necessary importance”. 9. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 1 st respondent. The Contempt Case is closed with the above observation, hoping that the same would be given necessary importance”. 9. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 1 st respondent. The contention that is repeated is that earlier grant of pay scale of Joint Registrar was ‘personal” to the then incumbent. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit, the very same averments are made, which had been frowned upon in the judgment in Con. Case (C) No.406 of 2024. The other ground that is sought to be put forward is that the pay sanctioned under the XI Pay Revision was in the scale of 107800-160000, which corresponds to the scale of 77400-115200 as recommended by the Pay Revision Commission and by the Judges’ Committee. It is contended that the said Pay Revision was implemented with effect from 01.07.2019 as per GO(P) No.27/2021/Fin dated 10.02.2021, and since the appointment of the petitioner is with effect from 01.01.2020, after the date of implementation of the XI Pay Revision, he can only be paid in the scale of 107800-160000. 10. The judgment in Ext.P8 was delivered on 04.02.2021, which was after the date of implementation of the XI Pay Revision. It was pursuant to the said judgment that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25933 of 2017 was granted the pay scale of Joint Registrar. The Pay Revision order itself was based on the situation that prevailed prior to the judgment in Ext.P8 and the consequential decisions, and it does not refer to the proposal of the Honourable the Chief Justice to grant pay scale of Joint Registrar to the Private Secretary to the Chief Justice. As such, it cannot be contended that the pay should be fixed as 107800-160000, as provided in the XI Pay Revision. What is material is the equating of the pay scale of a Private Secretary to the Chief Justice to that of the Joint Registrar. Whatever be the corresponding pay scale, as per the Pay Revision, to that of what is applicable to the Joint Registrar, would necessarily have to be applied for the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Justice and the successors in office in the said post. 11. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to reliefs. Whatever be the corresponding pay scale, as per the Pay Revision, to that of what is applicable to the Joint Registrar, would necessarily have to be applied for the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Justice and the successors in office in the said post. 11. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to reliefs. Ext.P15 is set aside and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of the Joint Registrar as 85000-117600 (pre- revised) with effect from 01.01.2020, with all consequential benefits, including subsequent Pay Revisions. The respondents are directed to sanction and disburse the benefits flowing from the above declaration to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.