LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. v. RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL ~ERVICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. MAY 24, 1999 [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] Service law : C Judiciary-Judicial Officers-Prescribed dress (black jacket and bands)-Reasons for-Dress allowance-Entitlement-On account of-Held: Prescribed dress by itself does not entitle a judicial officer to claim dress allowance-Further, reasons for which dress allowance is granted to lower staff are not applicable to judicial officers-It is for the National Judicial D Pay Commission to determine quantum of dress allowance-Reasons for prescribed dress, mentioned Judiciary-Judicial Officers-Pay and allowances-Grant of-By judicial directions-Held : Against constitutional discipline because responsibility of deciding appropriate service conditions is on the State E Government-However, High Courts can play an effective administrative role in this regard when backed by recommendations of Pay Commission-Unless service conditions seriously affect proper discharge of judicial duties, High Courts should not issue mandamus-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts.235 and 309. F The appellant-State had, by a notification, granted a dress allowance of Rs. 1500 once in every three years to the Members of the respondent- Association. However, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court for a direction that the respondents be granted a dress allowance of Rs. 10,665 initially and thereafter a kit maintenance allowance of Rs. 400 per month. One of the factors which led to the filing of the writ petition was G that the Delhi High Court by its judgement had directed grant of an initial lump sum amount of Rs. 5,500 and thereafter a monthly sum of Rs. 300 as ·dress allowance to all Judicial officers in Delhi. The High Court directed the appellant-State to pay to all its judicial officers a lump sum of Rs. 8,500 towards dress allowance and thereafter to pay Rs. 300/- per month towards H the maintenance of the dress. The High Court also directed the State to 798 ST A TE v. RAJ. JUDICIAL SER VICE OFFICERS AS SON. 799 consider a revision of these allowances every four years. Hence this appeal. A Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. A judicial officer is undoubtedly required to dress in the manner prescribed by the relevant Rules of each State in order to maintain the dignity of their office. The reason why a black jacket and bands are 'B prescribed for a judicial officer is quite different from the reason why a uniform is prescribed for peons, chaprasis, police constables and so on. The latter have to mix with the public and a uniform identifies them as belonging to a specified group of persons who have authority or duty to act in a certain way or perform certain services. A judicial officer presides over a court and C is quite identifiable by reason of the position he occupies in the court. Nevertheless, in order that there may be a certain amount of decorum and dignity associated with this office, he is expected to dress respectably i,n the manner specified. Bands and gown are an insignia of his office. This reason by itself is not sufficient for the High Court to direct payment of dress allowance to the judicial officers or to specify the exact amount, which the D State Government should pay. [801-F-H; 802-A) 1.2. Under Article 235 of the Constitution the High Court is invested with control over District Court and courts subordinate to it. Under Article 309, however, recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving, inter alia, as judicial officers of the State is to be controlled by appropriate E legislation, and until such legislation, the Governor of the State is empowered to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of judicial officers. [802-B-C] 2.1. Any piecemeal determination of individual allowances which go to form the total pay packet of a judicial officer, by ~ifferent High Courts by F issuing writ of mandamus would go counter to the very purpose of setting up a National Judicial Pay Commission. It would also not be appropriate for any High Court to give directions in its own State regarding a particular allowance without examining the relative conditions of judicial officers and the total pay packets which are received by judicial officers in other States. G [804-D-E] 2.2. Constitutional discipline also requires that the constitutional provision must be followed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.