STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus ASSN. OF COURT STENOS, P.A., P.S. AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 124 · Decided: 09-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
ASSN. OF COURT STENOS, P.A., P.S. AND ANR. 
JANUARY 9, 2002 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, R.P. SETHI AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226, 229(2), 39(d) and 14-
C Jurisdiction-Exercise of-Pay scales-Fixation of-Court Stenographers, 
Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries to the Hon 'ble Judges of the 
High Court-Court staff sought same pay scales as granted to the Personal 
Assistant to Chief Secretary and Additional Chief secretary-High Court in 
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 applied principle of 'equal pay 
D for equal work' and issued mandamus granting same pay scales-On appeal 
held, issuance of mandamus not justified-Fixation of pay scale is prerogative 
of the Chief Justice of the High Court on framing appropriate rules which 
require approval of Governor-Court would be justified in issuing direction 
to the Chief Justice to decide in exercise of powers under Article 229(2) of 
the Constitution. 
E 
Doctrines: 
'Equal pay for equal work'-Equitable principle-Enforceability of-
Discussed 
F 
Respondents alleged that they were getting the same scales of pay, as 
was being paid to the Senior Personal Assistants, attached to the Chief 
Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary in the State of Maharashtra 
prior to the Fifth Central Pay Commission but that parity has not been 
maintained after the fifth Pay Commission. Aggrieved, respondents filed a 
petition that their pay should be fixed in the same scale. High Court in 
G exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 applied the principle of 'Equal 
pay for equal work' and on an evaluation of the nature of duties discharged by 
,,._ -
the respondents issued the mandamus directing that same pay stale to be given 
to the respondents as was being paid to the Senior Personal Assistant attached 
to the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary in the State of 
H Maharashtra. It further directed that special allowance be granted to Senior 
124 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1•. ASSN. Of COURT STENOS, P.A., P.S. 
125 
Administrative Judges. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the High Court was not justified in granting a 
particular scale of pay to a particular class of employees which tan ta mounts 
A 
to granting a specific scale by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under 
Article 226. The Court might be justified in issuing the direction to the Chief 
Justice to perform his duty under Article 229(2) by framing a set of rules B 
and fixing any pay scale therein. It further submitted that it is incorrect that 
prior to the Fifth Pay Commission parity was being maintained in the pay 
scales. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
' 
HELD : 1. On a plain reading of Article 229(2) of the Constitution, it is 
apparent that the Chief Justice is the sole authority for fixing the salaries 
etc. of the employees of the High Court, subject to the rules made under Article 
229. The rules made by the Chief Justice will be subject to the provisions of 
c 
any law made by the Legislature of the State. In view of proviso to Article 
229(2), any rule relating to the salaries, allowances, leave or pension of the D 
employees of the High Court would require the approval of the Governor, before 
the same can be enforced. Such approval is a condition precedent to the validity 
of the rules made by the Chief Justice and the so-called approval of the 
Governor is not on his discretion, but being advised by the Government. 
Therefore, it would be logical to hold that apart from any power conferred by E 
the Rules framed under Article 229, the Government cannot fix the salary or 
authorise any particular pay scale of an employee of the High Court. 
(129-C-DI 
2. In the Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association *case this 
Court has considered the powers of the Chief Justice of India in relation to F 
the employees of the Supreme Court in the matter of laying down the service 
conditions of the employees of the Court, including the grant of pay scale and 
observed that the Chief Justice of India should frame rules after taking into 
consideration all relevant factors including the recommendation of the Pay 
Commission and submit the same to the President of India for his approval. 
What has been stated in the aforesaid judgment in relation to the Chief Justice G 
of India vis-a-vis the employees of the Supreme Court, should equally apply 
to the Chief Justice of the High Court vis-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.