UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus S.B. VOHRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 05-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
S.B. VOHRA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 5, 2004 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ, S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.) 
Service law: 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Arlicle 229-0jjicers of High Cozm-Promolion-Power and jurisdiction 
of Chief Justice of High Court-Held: Chief Justice of High Court no/ bound 
lo accepl the plea of Cenlral Govt. 1hat the posts of Asst. Registrar and Court 
Maslers should be merged-The question as regards merger of these posls 
D was wilhin Jhe exclusive domain of the CJ-Whether the Post of Ass/. Regislrar 
was a promolional post or not. thus, could not fall for lhe decision of /he 
. Central Govt. 
Article 229-0jjicers of High Courl-Fixation!revision of pay scales--
Power and Jurisdiclion of Chief Justice of High Court-Held; Recommendation 
E of Chief Justice of High Cour/ regardingfixalionlrevision of pay scales should 
ordinarily he approved by /he S1a1e-Refi1sal thereof must be for strong and 
adequate reasons-It would not be always helpful to raise the question of 
financial implication in this regard. 
Article 229-0fjicers of High Court-Fixation/revision of pay scales-
F Modalities of-Held: An expert body like /he Pay Commission should examine 
lhis maller--But in 1he absence of such expert body, the High Court itself 
should undertake the /ask keeping in view 1he special Constitutional provisions 
existing in this behalf in terms of Article 229. 
-;. 
Article 226-Mandamus-Writ-lssuance of-To Central Govt. to grant 
G a par/icular scale of pay lo Officers of High Court-Correctness of-Held: 
H 
Nol proper-Exercise of discretion by High Court depends upon the law which 
governs the field-High Court should allow statutory aulhorities to pe1form 
statuto1J' duties at the first instance-Administrative law. 
Articles 226 and 229~0jjicers of High Court-Fixation/revision of pay 
36 
U.0.1. v. S.B. VOHRA 
37 
"1'-
scales-Power of High Court-Held: Only in exceptional cases, the High A 
Court may interfere on the judicial side-But ordinarily it should not do so-
Even if interference is necessa1y, the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction 
with care and circumspection. 
Article 133-0fficers of High Court-Fixation/revision 'of pay scales-
/n respect of Private Secretaries to Judges -Appeal against -Held: As the B 
matter was pending for a long time and pay scale already given, Supreme 
Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. 
The respondents were Assistant Registrars in the High Court. The 
post of Assistant Registrar was a promotional post for the Superintendents, 
Court Masters and Private Secretaries. The Chief Justice of the High C 
Court recommended that the scales of pay of the respondents be revived. 
As the appellant paid no heed to this recommendation, the respondents 
filed a writ petition before the High Court. 
The High CQurt allowed the writ petition by issuing a writ of 
mandamus directing the appellant to grant the recommended pay scale D 
to the respondents. Hence the appeal. 
\ 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the High Court 
could not issue a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to grant the 
recommended pay scale to the respondents; that fixation of pay scale by 
the Chief Justice of the High Court required the approval of the President E 
of India in terms of Article 229(2) of the Constitution; that the Fourth 
Pay Commission had recommended the same pay scales for 
Superintendents, Court Masters and Private Secretaries as also the 
Assistant Registrars and, therefore, both these categories of posts were 
treated as equal or merged; and that granting of a higher scale of pay F 
would have adverse effect on other employees of the State. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The Chief Justice of the High Court in this case was not 
bound to accept that the posts of Assistant Registrar and Court Masters G 
should be merged. The question as regard merger of the two posts was 
within the exclusive domain of the Chief Justice. Whether. the post of 
Assistant Registrar should be a promotional post or not, thus, could not 
fall for decision of the Central Government. [56-C-DI 
Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, [19941 5 SCC 392, referred to. 
H 
38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004) I S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. If the nature of duties performed by the Assistant Registrars 
B 
had been more onerous than the Court Master, a higher scale of pay was 
required to be fixed. Furthermore, merger of the cadres must be made in 
terms of the s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.