LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus SHRI P.D. ATTRI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH A v. SHRI P.D. ATTRI AND OTHERS FEBRUARY 11, 1999 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) B -, >-- Service Law-Redesignation and parity of posts-Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and Servants (Salaries, Leave, Allowance and Pension) Rules 1971-f'unjab and Haryana Establishment (Appointment and Condi- c tions of Service) Rules 1973-Adoption of rules of one State by another Stat~edesignation and equation of posts-Senior Translators and Junior Translators of Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking parity in pay scales and redesignation of posts with employees of Punjab and Haryana High Court_;_policy and Practice of Himachal Pradesh High Court adopting pay scales with Punjab and Haryana High Court, whether binds the State to follow D rules made by the other State-Held, while a State' may adopt the pay scales sanctioned for employees in another State from time to time, it is not bound to so follow-Rules of each High Court have to be examined independently- Recommendations of the Chief Justice of the High Court are, however, to be given due deference and utmost consideration by State Government. E Senior Translators and Junior Translators working in the Himachal Pradesh High Court approached the High Court in a writ petition seeking redesiguation as Revisers and Translators, and equation of their posts Cl with Superintendents Grade II and Assistants in the Himachal Pradesh F Civil Secretariat with effect from 23.1.75. When relevant provisions of the ,< Punjab and Haryana Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1973 (P&H Rules) were notified on 23.1.86 with effect from · 25.9.85, redesignating and equating the posts, these posts were similarly equated in the Himachal Pradesh High Court by the Chief Justice after obtaining approval of the Governor by notification dated 17.6.87 with effect G from 25;9.85. After the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court i.., in Sunder Sham Kapur v.Hon'ble Chief Justice, (1987) 4 SLR 460, the P&H -"· Rules were given effect to from 23.1.75 instead of 25.9.85. The respondents represented on that basis to the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, who recommended their case to the State Government for H 587 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R. A obtaining approval of the Governor. Since no approval was received from the Governor, the respondents filed the writ petition. It was conceded before the High Court that since as per policy and practice, the State Government adopt~d the pay scales sanctioned for the B officers and servants of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court had recommended redesig- nation and equation of posts from 23.1.75, guided by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sunder Sham Kapur's case. The State, in appeal before this Court, challenged the judgment of C the High Court. Sunder Sham Kapur having been reversed by this Court while holding that the Revisors earlier designated as Translators would · be entitled to revised pay scale from 5.8.80 and not from 23.1.75, it was D submitted for the respondents that they would be satisfied if they were held entitled to similar pay scale as provided to their counterparts in the Punjab and Haryana High Court with effect from 5.8.80. E F Allowing the appeal, this Court Held : 1. Rules of each High Court have to be examined inde- pendently. There cannot be any such law that 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. 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 sa'me rules and regulations, it is not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other State. The State of Himachal Pradesh as per "policy and practice" had 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 G High Court, and it may even now follow to grant pay scales, but no law commands it to do so. (591-H; 592-C] Sunder Sham Kapur v. Hon'ble Chief Justice, (1987) 4 SLR 460 and Punjab and H aryana High Court, Chandigarh through its Registrar v. Sunder H Sham Kapoor, (1997) 9 SCC 174, referred to. ,-- --< STATEv. P.D.ATfRI [D.P. WADHWA,J.] 589 2. The fact remains th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.