STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus SECTION OFFICER BROTHERHOOD AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 27-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ST A TE OF UTT AR PRADESH 
v. 
SECTION OFFICER BROTHERHOOD AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 229: 
Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and 
Conduct) Rules, 1976-Rule 40: 
Higher Pay Scale-Demand-By employees of High Court in parity 
with employees of another High Court-Representation-Forwarded by 
Chief Justice of High Court to State Government- No Rules framed or 
decision by Chief Justice of High Court f1Xing terms and conditions of service 
or f1Xing pay scale of employees in parity with employees of another High 
Court-Writ Petition-Grant of higher pay scale by High Court-On appeal, 
held: In the absence of any rule or decision by Chief Justice, High Court was 
not justified to direct higher pay scale-Mere forwarding of representation 
would not amount to exercise of constitutional jurisdiction u!A 229. 
Article 226-Judicial review-Scope of-Held: It lies where pu.blic law 
element is involved-Question as to whether such element is involved is to 
be determined in each case. 
Respondents-Section Officers, Private Secretaries, Bench Secretaries 
and Assistant Registrars working in the High Court of Allahabad made 
representation to the Chief Justice of the High Court demanding higher 
pay-scale on par with their counterparts in Delhi High Court. Chief 
Justice forwarded the representation to the State Government with 
recommendations to consider the same on the ground of parity. They 
filed Writ Petition seeking direction for higher pay scale on the ground 
that the State Government had decided as a matter of policy to grant 
central pay scales to the employees of High Court and it was within 
power of Chief Justice of the High Court to determine the equivalence 
H 
of the employees of High Court vis-a-vis employees of Central 
744 
STA TE v. SECTION OFFICER BROTHERHOOD 
745 
Government/Delhi High Court for determination of consequent pay scale 
applicable thereto. Case of the appellant-State was that staff and officers 
of the Allahabad High Court were being paid salaries at par with their 
counterparts in U.P. Secretariat as per order of the State Government 
made in terms of recommendation of Chief Justice in view of the 
resolution adopted in the Chief Justices' Conference in 1962; that in 
absence of any order for discontinuance or withdrawal of the said order 
no relief could be granted to the writ petitioners; that neither any decision 
had been taken to grant parity to the employees of the Allahabad High 
Court with the employees of Delhi High Court, nor any Pay Commission 
or Pay Committee or any Expert Body was constituted for ·the said 
purpose; that in absence of any recommendation, High Court in exercise 
of its jurisdiction u/A 226 of the Constitution could not issue a writ of 
mandamus. 
High Court allowed the Writ Petition directing the State to fix 
A 
B 
c 
the salary of the petitioners in parity with their counterparts of Delhi 
D 
High Court w.e.f. the date when the recommendations of the Chief Justice 
of High Court were communicated·to State Government. 
On appeal this Court granted stay of the operation of High Court 
judgment and in respect of the other appeal granted interim stay of 
payment of first instalment of arrears. 
E 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Determination of different scales of pay for different 
categories of employees would ordinarily fall within the realm of an 
expert body like the Pay Commission or Pay Committee. In view of 
Article 229 of the Constitution of India, laying down the conditions of 
service· applicable in the case of staff and officers of a High Court is 
within the exclusive domain of the Chief Justice but in case of any 
financial implication involved the approval of the State Governor is 
imperative. [753-B] 
State of HP. v. P.D. Attri and Ors., (1999] 3 SCC217 and State of 
Maharashtrta v. Association of Court Stenos, P.A. P.S. and Anr., (2002] 2 
sec 141, referred to. 
F 
G 
1.2. In the present case, the Chief Justice merely forwarded the H 
.A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
representation of the Respondents for grant of a higher scale of pay 
with effect from 1.1.1986 directing the Registry to forward the same to 
the State Government with recommendations to consider the same on 
the ground of parity. Such forwarding of recommendations to the State 
Government did n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.