STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. versus T. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHI & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 1008 · Decided: 25-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1008 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. 
A 
v. 
T. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTffi & ORS. 
September 25, 1975 
[A. ALAGIRJSWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950, provio!O td Article 229· (2)-Fixadon ·Of pay 
scales of Hi'glz Court staff- Chief Justice of High Court riecd1nmending scales 
( 
of pay of equivulent posts in Secnetariat of Government_;_Requirement of 
approval of Governor, if 011/y formal. 
Andhra Pradesh High Co.urt Servio,e Rules, 1959·. Rule 19. 
The Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh wanted the High 
Court staff, to be paid at the scales of pay of equivalent posts in the Secretariat 
staff of the -Government on Andhra Pradesh. The Government did not agree to 
do so. 
The respondents who are members of the High Court service belongw 
in, to the categories of Bench Clerks, Lower Division Clerks, Typists and certain 
other categories filed a writ petition in the High Court for a writ of mandamus 
against the appellants directing them to implement the recommendations of the 
Chief Justice of the High Court made to the Government from time to time 
to fix the pay scales of the various categories to which the respondei;its belong 
in accordance with the scales of pay aSi revised by the State Govemment in 
case of corresponding categories detailed in Annexure III of the 
Andhra 
Pradesh Secretariat servire. The High Court allowed the writ petition 
and 
directed th.e Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Chief 
Justice embodied in the letters of the Registrar of the High Court dated 31-301969 
and .l-7-1969 with such allowances and such benefits as are admissible to the 
members of the Secretariat service in the Secretariat. The High Court took the 
view that for the purposes of appointments of officers and servants of the High 
Court and laying down the conditions of their service the Chief Justice is the 
highest authority. The requirement of the approval of the Governor of the State 
under the proviso to clause (2) of Article 229 is a requirement of a mere formal 
approval. The Government could not. refuse to accord their approval when 
1he recommendation of the Chief_ Justice was merely for equation of pay scales 
of the High Court staff with those of the S<ecretariat's. The High Court did 
not rest its judgment on Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Servioe 
Rules, 1959. 
This appeal has been preferred on the basis of the certificate 
granted by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, 
IIBLD: (1) It is not correct to say that the approval of the Governor 
under thei proviso to clause (2) of Article 229 is a mere formality and in no 
case it is Open to the Governm,nt to refuse to accord their approval. 
Merely 
because the Government is not right in accepting the Chief Justice's view and 
refusing to accord approval is no ground for holding that by a writ of mandamus 
the Government may be directed to accord the approval. 
[1010-D, -1011-E] 
M. Gurumoorthy v. Aceountant General Assam and 
Nagaland & 
Ors., 
(1971] Suppl. .S.C.R. 420 and The State of Assam v. Bhubhan Chandra Dutta 
and Anr. [1975] 4 S.C.C. I reHed on. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(ii) Jt is not correct to say that Rule 19(1) authorised the Chief Justire to 
regulate the pay or the High Court·staff in the manner he thdught it fit and pro-
per to do without any further reference to the Governor. There are no suchl 
words to thi• effect in Rule 19(1). 
The reference to "the Rules regulating 
the pay or the Services included in the Pay Schedule and other rules for the 
H 
time being in forre applicabfe to -officers under the rule-making control of the 
Government of Andhra Pradesh'' was merely a reference to the rules and not 
to the pay schedules. This was further made clear by the first proviso of Rule 
19(1). [1013·B-CJ 
• 
\ 
' 
, 
•
\ 
I 
• 
• 
A.P. STATE v. GOPAL KRISHNA (Untwalia, !.) 
1009 
A 
Obseryation :- On the facts and in th~ circumgtances Of this case and in the 
background of the conditions which are prevalent in othez; States. Government 
could have been well~dVised to accord to approval the suggootion of the Chief 
J~t.ice .• as the s.Qggestion was nothing more than to equate the pay scale of the 
High Court staff with/ those of the equivalent posts in the Secretariat. [1001-D] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
II 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 2136 of 
1972. 
From' the Judgment and Decree dated the 18th April, 1972 of 
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 85
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.