IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 4556 of 2007(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THE KERALA HIGH COURT NON-GRADUATES STAFF ASSOCIATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, A.RAVEENDRAN. 2. V.G.VENUGOPAL, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NANDAKUMAR, R2 BY MR. K.R.B.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, S.C, ADV. MR.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 5246 OF 2007 AND CONNECTED CASES,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4556/2007-R: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.175/97/HOME DTD. 14/07/1997. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.230/2006/HOME DTD. 26/12/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 06/02/2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.3850/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE D.O. LETTER NO. A1-19864 OF THE R.2. TO THE GOVERNMENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C). Nos. 4556, 5246, 7668 & 10762 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of October 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners in these cases are Staff of High Court. They have approached this Court for an appropriate direction to the Government to accept the recommendations made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, for granting them Special Compensatory Allowances, in terms of the earlier recommendations made by the Pay Revision Committee constituted for the High Court Staff. I will refer to the facts in W.P.(C).No.10762/2007 in the first instance. 2. The petitioner is a Dafedar in the High Court Service. The State Government constituted a Pay Revision Commission in the year 2005. The Hon'ble Chief Justice then entrusted the said Commission with the task of looking into the pay scales and related matters pertaining to the employees of various categories in the High Court Establishment. The Commission submitted its report and the Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted a Committee of W.P.(C). Nos. 4556, 5246, 7668 & 10762 OF 2007 2 Judges to examine the report and putforth specific proposals for revision of the pay scales and allowances of the High Court Staff. The Committee of Judges went into the matter and also considered the representations of the Service Associations. Committee made recommendations in the matter of pay scales and also in the matter of special compensatory allowances in relation to different categories of staff. 3. The Government issued G.O.(MS).230/06/Home dated 26.12.2006, Ext.P1 in the present case, and it was found that some of the recommendations made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, were not accepted and acted upon. 4. The Hon'ble Chief Justice then directed the Registrar to bring to the notice of the Government, the anomalies so detected and it is therefore that a letter dated 02.04.2007 (marked as Ext.R2(a)) was forwarded to the Chief Secretary wherein after referring to the earlier recommendations made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, it was pointed out the Government has not issued an order accepting such recommendations in toto that the issue has again been considered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the W.P.(C). Nos. 4556, 5246, 7668 & 10762 OF 2007 3 Hon'ble Chief Justice has directed the Registrar to intimate the Government that it was the law laid down by the Supreme Court that the recommendations made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason for not doing so, approval should be granted. Reference in this regard was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association vs. Union of India and another (1989(4) Supreme Court Cases 187), Union of India vs. Kishor K.Sharma (2004(2) SCC 150), and the decision of the High Court in High Court Non-graduate Staff Association vs. State of Kerala (1997(2) KLT 665). The Registrar was directed to intimate the Government and request the Government for orders in the light of the law laid down by the apex court and consequently issue orders rectifying the anomalies which has been earlier pointed out by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. In spite of the fact that Ext.R2(a) letter dated 02.04.2007 has been pending with the Government for more than two years, no action has been taken. This writ petition was W.P.(C). Nos. 4556, 5246, 7668 & 10762 OF 2007 4 filed challenging Ext.P1 to the extent to which it denies Compensatory Allowance to Dafedars and Court Keepers who are in High Court Service and also direct the Government in sanctioning Compensatory Allowance to the Dafedars. 5. It may be noted in this context that Dafedars were sanctioned Compensatory Allowance to the tune of Rs.200/-, under the earlier pay revision orders, and were in receipt of such benefits till the pay revision order which came into effect from 01.07.2004 was issued. It was after taking note of these facts as well, the Hon'ble Chief Justice earlier sent a recommendation to the Government for grant of Compensatory Allowances, essentially as a continuation of a benefit which was being given to the petitioner and similarly situated persons. The reasons for continuing such benefits were also communicated. It is in spite of with Ext.P1 is issued. The same contains the orders issued by the Government accepting the recommendations of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, in most of the cases. The said order also evidences the fact that the recommendation for Compensatory Allowance was not accepted. W.P.(C). Nos. 4556, 5246, 7668 & 10762 OF 2007 5 6. Similar is the case as regards the petitioners in W.P.(C). No.4556/2007 who are Typists and Office Superintendents. W.P.(C).No.7668/2007 deals with Lift Operators and W.P.(C). No.5246/2007 deals with Court Keepers, Dafedar, Cook and Civil Sergeant. There was a recommendation of the Hon'ble Chief Justice for a Compensatory Allowance in respect of all these persons and apparently such recommendations have not been accepted by the Government. 7. I heard learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri. Sajeevkumar K. Gopal, Sri. P.C.Sasidharan and Sri. Denizen Komath, Sri. B.Unnikrishna Kaimal for the High Court and Sri. P.Nanda Kumar for the Government. 8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the High Court and statement has been filed by the State. 9. The Ext.R2(a) produced along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent is a letter addressed by the Registrar General to the Chief Secretary on 02.04.2007. Reference is made in the said letter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice having entrusted to the State Pay Revision Commission 2005, the W.P.(C). Nos. 4556, 5246, 7668 & 10762 OF 2007 6 task of looking into the pay revision of the employees of the High Court. The Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted a Committee of Honourable Judges to put forth recommendations regarding the pay and representations of the employees of the High Court. The Committee considered the merits of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission and had also looked into the representations placed by the Service Associations and other relevant matters. The committee then placed specific proposals regarding the Pay Revision of the employees of the High Court before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. It was thereafter the Chief Justice forwarded to the Government specific proposals, based on the recommendations of the Committee of Honourable Judges. Revision of pay and allowances of the officers and staff of the High Court was ordered by the Government, as per the Government Order G.O.(MS).No.230/2006/Home dated 26.12.2006 (Ext.P1). Certain anomalies in the said order as regards the pay and allowance of the High Court staff was detected and it was therefore that the Hon'ble Chief Justice again found that the earlier recommendation made by the W.P.(C). Nos. 4556, 5246, 7668 & 10762 OF 2007 7 Hon'ble Chief Justice was eligible to be accepted. Ext.R2(a) makes specific reference to the grant of Special Compensatory Allowance to different categories of staff and details of the same were included in Annexure-II to Ext.R2(a). Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court on the point of law, request was made to issue orders in terms of the recommendations already made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. 10. Normally the recommendation made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in a matter of this kind merits acceptance by the Government. But law recognizes the possibility of a disagreement by the Government. But there cannot be a disagreement merely because the Government has the power not to accept the recommendations of the Hon'ble Chief Justice in toto. This is the area where the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association vs. Union of India and another (1989(4) Supreme Court Cases 187) holds that there should be a meeting of mind between two constitutional functionaries in the W.P.(C). Nos. 4556, 5246, 7668 & 10762 OF 2007 8 matter of pay and allowances of the employees and staff of the High Court. The recommendation made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in this regard should normally be accepted and if the Government does not accept it, then there is to be a weighty reason clearly justifying such disagreement. 11. No such reasons justifying such disagreement have been disclosed in these cases. Ext.R2(a) was a recommendation that was issued as per the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice after considering Ext.P1 Government Order which itself was in response to the earlier recommendation made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Ext.P1 Government Order does not contain any reason why the Government thought it fit not to accept the recommendations of the earlier Committee of Honourable Judges constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the enforcement of the pay revision order. It is more than two years since the recommendation under Ext.R2(a) has been pending before the Government. No reasons which would otherwise justify the Government taking up a stand in disagreement with the recommendations contained in Annexure-II to Ext.R2(a) has been W.P.(C). Nos. 4556, 5246, 7668 & 10762 OF 2007 9 placed on record. In these circumstances, the normal course of action which is available to the Government is to pass orders, accepting the recommendations contained in Ext.R2(a), at any rate, it is imperative on the part of the Government not to delay an order on Ext.R2(a). 12. I take note of the fact that in all these cases, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has recommended a Special Compensatory Allowance for each one of the categories of staff. I further take note of the fact that essentially, the recommendation made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in the matter of special compensatory allowance does not contemplate any new allowance. The recommendation was only to continue the existing allowance. But in the case of Lift Operators, they were earlier getting a Special Compensatory Allowance of Rs.200/- per month. The present recommendation of the Hon'ble Chief Justice is to give them a Special Compensatory Allowance of Rs.35/- and Special Allowance of Rs.40/-. Even that has not been accepted. 13. In these circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Government to pass orders on the W.P.(C). Nos. 4556, 5246, 7668 & 10762 OF 2007 10 recommendations and request conveyed to the Government as per Ext.R2(a) within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As regards the different categories of Staff, whose case have been specifically dealt with in the Annexure-II to Ext.R2(a), this shall be done and orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, if the Government has sought for any clarification regarding any category of Staff, the High Court may clarify within one month from the date of acceptance of communication. It is further made clear that the Government shall bear in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association vs. Union of India and another (1989(4) Supreme Court Cases 187), as regards the high value attributed to the recommendation of the Hon'ble Chief Justice in relation to the pay and allowances of the High Court Staff. The recommendations made by the Hon'ble Chief justice should be treated with respect and unless there are a weighty reasons W.P.(C). Nos. 4556, 5246, 7668 & 10762 OF 2007 11 for not granting approval, approval should be granted (refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association vs. Union of India and another (1989(4) Supreme Court Cases 187) ). Writ petitions are disposed of as above. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/