JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. The question raised in this petition is whether the recommendations of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this High Court have been considered by the Respondent-State Government objectively after exchange of views and thoughts between the Gov[ENTITY] of Himachal Pradesh and the Chief Justice of this Court in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. [ENTITY] and Ors. .
2. The Perspective:
3. The petitioners herein were employees working in the establishment of the High Court as Senior Translators and Junior Translators. They are governed by the [ACT], ("Himachal Rules" for short). Similar posts in the establishment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court were governed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973. ("[ACT]" for short).
4. [ACT] relating to the Senior Translators and Junior Trans-, lators were amended after receiving the approval of the President of India under Clause (2) [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT]. As a result, posts of Senior Translators were re-designated as Revisers and equated with the posts of Superintendent Grade II in the establishment of the Punjab Civil Secretariat. Similarly, posts of Junior Translators were re-designated as Translators and equated with the posts of Assistant in the establishment of the Punjab Civil Secretariat w.e.f. 25th September, 1985.
5. Consequent upon the re-designation of these posts in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, these posts were accordingly re-designated/equated in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by the Hon'ble Chief Justice after obtaining approval from the Gov[ENTITY] of the Respondent-State. The Notification was issued by the High Court on 17th June, 1987. The petitioners were given their new designation and pay scales from 25th September, 1985, the day from which similar posts in the Punjab and Haryana High Court were re-designated as Revisers and Translators.
6. It is admitted position that with regard to the grant of pay scales of the various categories of its employees, the State of Himachal Pradesh follows the Punjab pattern of pay scales.
7. If so transpires that by a Notification dated 8th October, 1987, [ACT] were amended in supersession to the earlier Notification, whereby the posts in question were re-designated w.e.f. 25th September, 1985 and the re-designation/equation was given effect from 23rd January, 1975. This Notification was issued because of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in [ENTITY]'s case.
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, in the circumstances, recommended for the re-designation/equation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators with effect from 23rd January, 1975 instead of 25th September, 1985 as notified earlier on the Punjab pattern.
8. The State Government slept over the matter. The approval of the Gov[ENTITY] was not received as recommended by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court.
9. In this background the petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for redressal of their grievance. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition ([CASE NUMBER]) on May 21, 1992, holding that the petitioners were entitled to the re-designation equation of posts w.e.f. 23rd January, 1975. The Division Bench of this Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to accord and convey the approval for the re-designation and equation of the posts for Senior Translators and Junior Translators with Revisers and Translators and equate them with the posts of Superintendents Grade-11 and Assistants in the Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat from 23rd January, 1975.
10. The State Government challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in [CASE NUMBER] before the Supreme Court. This appeal was allowed on February 11, 1999 and the impugned judgment of this Court was set aside. (See: State of Himachal Pradesh v. [ENTITY] and Ors. .
While allowing the appeal, the Apex Court observed:
Recommendations of the Chief Justice of the High Court are to be given due deference and utmost consideration by the State Government. It certainly cannot sleep over the recommendations. Things have now certainly changed after the decision of this Court in [ENTITY] case where Revisers in the Punjab and Haryana High Court are to be given benefit of pay scale of Superintendent (Grade II) from 5.8.1980 from which date the respondents are agreeable to the benefits granted to them. We may again observe and commend to the State Governments the following observations of this Court in [PRECEDENT]
57. So far as the Supreme Court and the High Courts are concerned, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned are empowered to frame rules subject to this that when the rules are framed by the Chief Justice of India or by the Chief Justice of the High Court relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, the approval of the President of India or the Gov [ENTITY], as the case may be, is required. It is apparent that the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court have been placed at a higher level in regard to the framing of rules containing the conditions of service. It is true that the President of India cannot be compelled to grant approval to the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, but it is equally true that when such rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not for grant approval, the approval should always be granted. If the President of India is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts between the President of India and the Chief Justice of India.
11. The Supreme Court also retiterated the observation of the Apex Court in High Court of Judicature for [PRECEDENT] , restating what a State Government is expected to do when recommendations are made by the Chief Justice of a High Court. The observations in [PRECEDENT], are apposite and may be reproduced:
Since, under the [ACT], the Chief Justice has also the power to make rules regulating the conditions of service of the officers and servants of the High Court, it is obvious that he can also prescribe the scale of salary payable for a particular post. This would also include the power to revise the scale of pay. Since such a rule would involve finances, it has been provided in the [ACT] that it will require the approval of the Gov[ENTITY] which, in other words, means the State Government. This Court in [PRECEDENT], had expressed the hope that one should accept in the fitness of things and in view of the spirit of [SECTION] that the approval, ordinarily and generally, would be accorded. This was reiterated by this Court in [PRECEDENT]. We again reiterate the hope and feel that once the Chief Justice, in the interest of High Court administration, has taken a progressive step specially to ameliorate the service conditions of the officers and staff working under him, the State Government would hardly raise any objection to the sanction of creation of posts or fixation of salary payable for that post or the recommendation for revision of scale of pay if the scale of pay of the equivalent post in the Government has been revised.
12. Restating the position of law the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the respondent State Government in the following terms:
Recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court should be considered by the State Government having regard to the observations made above and decision taken at an early date.
13. Consequent to the directions of the Supreme Court, the Registrar General of this Court, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in [ENTITY], Attri's case, addressed a letter to the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh reproducing the paragraph which directed that the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court should be re-considered by the State Government having regard to the observations made in this judgment. The Registrar General requested the State Government for reconsideration of the re-designation and equation of the posts of the Revisers and Translators w.e.f. 23rd January, 1975 with corresponding or comparable posts of Superintendent Grade-II and Assistant in Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat respectively.
14. The State Government instead of considering the request of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, as conveyed by the Registrar General of the Court, reiterated its earlier decision and conveyed tersely to the Registrar General by its communication dated 2nd July, 1999 (Annexure-PE) that the recommendation of Hon'ble the Chief Justice is rejected on the same grounds as conveyed earlier. The letter of the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh addressed to the Registrar General of this Court dated 2nd July, 1999 reads:
No. Home-B(E)3-97/90 Government of Himachal Pradesh Home Department From The F.C.-cum-Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
To The Registrar General, H.P. High Court, Shimla.
Dated Shimla-171 002, 2.7.1999.
Subject: [CASE NUMBER], titled State of H.P. v. [ENTITY] and Ors. Consideration of the recommendations there of.
Sir, [ENTITY], I am directed to refer to your letter No. HHC/Admn.7/(11)/92-7082 dated 3,5.1999 on the subject cited above and to say that merely on grounds that Punjab & Haryana High Court give benefits to its translators etc. with effect from 1975, it does not suo-moto follow that similar relief should automatically be given to employees in Himachal Pradesh High Court with effect from 1975. As such the decision of the State Government to allow these pay scales with effect from 23.9.1985, is justified.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
Additional Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
The Grievance:
The grievance of the petitioners is that though the State Government is not bound to follow every change in the rules and regulations in the State of Punjab relating to the pay structure of its employee, but this is the only case where deviation has been made by the State Government to the disadvantage of the petitioners, particularly, when the financial burden on the State exchequer was minimal and there would not be any recurring future expenditure. The other grievance of, the petitioners is that the State Government has not considered the recommendations of Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in [ENTITY]'s case (supra).
15. Heard Mr. [ENTITY], learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. [ENTITY], learned Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. [ENTITY], learned Counsel for the High Court.
16. The Apex Court, as noticed earlier, has observed that the recommendations of the Chief justice of the High Court are to be given due deference and utmost consideration by the State Government. It certainly cannot casually reject the recommendations without exchange of thoughts and reason.
17. The Supreme Court unambiguously observed that the Chief Justices of High Courts are placed at a higher level in regard to the framing of rules containing conditions of service, therefore, their recommendations specially to ameliorate the service conditions of the officers and staff working in the Registry of a High Court "would hardly meet any objection".
18. It is true that the Gov[ENTITY] cannot be compelled to grant approval to the rules framed by th Chief Justice of the High Court relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, but it is equally true that when such rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted.
19. Their Lordship reiterate in [ENTITY]'s case that if the Gov[ENTITY] is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be ex-change of thoughts between the Gov[ENTITY] and the Chief Justice of the State.
20. The record of the case shows that the Registrar of the High Court conveyed to the Government as far back as on 13th February, 1989 that the financial implication involved comes to only Rs. 2.5 lacs approximately which, in my view, is not much of a burden. The State Government f should also have considered that already some of the petitioners have drawn arrears and recovery proceedings have been initiated against them which indeed would cause undue hardship to the petitioners for no fault of their.
21. A reading of the impugned letter "Annexure-PE" dated 2nd July, 1999 does not show that any objective consideration was given, at an appropriate level, to the recommendations of Hon'ble the Chief Justice as reiterated in the letter of the Registry dated 3rd May, 1999. In fact, the letter in question is bereft of any reason except that the State Government is not bound to follow suit the benefit which was accorded to the Translators and Revisers by the Punjab & Haryana High Court after approval from the President of India.
22. I am of the considered view that there was no objective consideration of the recommendations of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court far less by an appropriate authority. The decision of the Government is not informed by any reason.
23. Learned Advocate General submits that the recommendation of Hon'ble the Chief Justice was considered, but at the same time he fairly states that there is no record to show that the recommendation was considered objectively at a level which it deserved in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in [ENTITY]'s case (supra).
24. In result, the petition is allowed. Impugned letter "Annexure-PE" is quashed. It is directed that the recommendations of Hon'ble the Chief Justice for re-designation and equation of post of the Junior Trans- f lators and Senior Translators to that of Assistant and Superintendent (Grade-11) w.e.f. 23rd January, 1975 shall be considered in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in [ENTITY]'s case (supra) and the , observations made hereinabove within six weeks from today at an appropriate level after due exchange of thoughts between Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Gov[ENTITY] presented by the Registrar General of the High Court and the Chief Secretary to the Government of Hirnachal Pradesh respectively. The decision so taken shall be conveyed to the Registrar General of this Court by 15th January, 2006.
25. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
26. No costs.