STATE OF ASSAM versus BHUBHAN CHANDRA DATTA & ANR.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 854 · Decided: 05-03-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

854 
STATE OF ASSAM 
v. 
BHUBHAN CHANDRA DATIA & ANR. 
March 5, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, C. J., K. K. MATHEW AND V. R. KRJSHNA IYER, JJ.] 
Assam a11d Nagaland High Court Services 
(A ppointmcnt, Conditions of 
Sm•ice and Conduct) R.ules, 1956. rr. 3 and 11-Scope of-Power of Chief 
/11stice 10 fi.t special pay and allowance of Registrar. 
Under the Assam and Nagaland High Court Services (Appointment, Condi· 
tions of Service and Conduct) Ruks, 1956, the initial pay of ihe Registrar of 
the High Court was .Rs. 850/ • per month.. Under r. 3 U >,. when th~ post '"'.3S 
filled up from the iudicial service, It will carry a special !JUY. 
rhe Cluef 
Justice had also power under the rule to l\x, wl tgout the prev10~ approval of 
the Llovernor, the initial pay up'to· Rs. 1200/- per month accordmg.to exp~n
ence etc. 
Subsequently, the rule wa5 altered authons,ng the Chief Justice 
·10 fix the in:tial pay, without the approval of the Governor, up to Rs. 1180/-. 
The State Government revised the pay scale of the Registrar with effect fr.om 
ht April 
1964 anc! fixed the initial pay at Rs. 1200/-, 
A special pay was 
also sanctioned if he was borne on the judicial serv.ce, but no change in r .. 
3(1), authorising the Chief Justice to fix the initial salary up to Rs. 1180/· 
per month was made, 
On April 28, 1967, the respondent, who had retired from the judicial service 
and was holding the post of Pres:ding Officer. Industrial Tribunal, was appointed 
R~gistrar of the High Court and the Chief Justice fix~d a sp~cial initial sahiry 
of Rs. 1500/-, that is, at the maximum of the !~ale, and a special allowar1ce 
of Rs. 250/-. 
On the question whether the fixation of the salary and special allowance was 
l'a!id the High Court held in favour of the respondent on the grounds that, 
(a) bec~use in the past the Chief frstice could appoint the Registrar with the 
;pccial pay of Rs, 1200/· or Rs. 1180/- when the initial pay was Rs. 850/., 
that is, he could gJve six increments of RB. 50, the Chief Just'ce could now 
appoint the Registrar witb the special pay of Rs. 1500 /- when the initial pay 
was Rs. 1200/- by giving five increments of Rs. 60; and (b) when the initial 
pay itself was Rs. 1200/· the power of the Chii:f Justice to fix a special pay 
of Rs. 1180/- became meaningless and i:nust be read as Rs. 1500/·. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( 1) The reasoning: of the High Cou1t was ·wrong and no su,:h 
power could be implied in the Chief Justice, If the Chief Justice wanted 1:0 
uppoint the Registrar with the special salarv of Rs. 1500/. and special an ow. 
11.nc:e, approval of the Governor should have bee.n taken under Art. 229(2), 
because the rules do not permit such a sllilary and the higher salary involvc:s 
greater financial burden on the Government. (857G-858BJ 
M. Gurumoorthy v. Accountant General Assam & Nagaia11d & Ors. (1971] 
Supp. S.C.R. 420 followed. 
(2) Further, r. 3(1) conferred power on the Chief Justice to fix the speci<il 
•tllowancc onlv w~e~ the oost is filled from the members of the judicial servic(:. 
The. post of. Pres1d111g Officer, Industrial Tribunal was im;Iu<led in the Assam 
fodlClal Service only on Atlgust 17, 1967, and not when the respondent was 
appointed as a Registrar of the High Court. That apart, it is indisputable that 
the respondent had retired from the State Judicial Service and it could not 
be ~aid that such a retired person was member of lhe Judicial Service or wa:; 
borne on the service. [8580-F] 
· 
(3) Rule 11 is a general rule and is not applicable to we appointment andl 
fixat10u of pay and special altowan:es of the Registrar because there is specific 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
ASSAM v. B. C. DATTA (Ray, C.J.) 
SSS 
A 
provision; namely,! r. 3 ( 1) for the post of Registrar vvhich prevails over the 
general rule. 
Moreover. r. 11. must al-:o be read subject to th·e proviso 10 
Art. 229'(2) which. requires the approval of the Governor for fixing pay ClL'. 
Also, Fundamental Rule 19 does not permit any su:h fixation in the teeth of 
r. 3(1) on the strength of r. 11. 
f859C-FJ 
CML APPELLATE JuRISDICTlON : Civil Appeal 
No. 
1547 of 
1969. 
B 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 
19th May, 1969 of the Assam & Nagaiand High Court in Civil Rule 
No. 126 of 1969. 
c 
() 
G 
11 
Moinul Haque Choudhary and Naunit Lal, for the appellant. 
Sarjoo Prasad, and S. N. Prasad, for respondent no. 1. 
P. l'. Rao and S. P. Nayar, for respondent no. 2. 
RAY, C.J.-This appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.