* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH +WRIT PETITION No. 2167 of 2008 % Dated 25-06-2008 # Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges Association. … Petitioners VERSUS $ The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Home (Courts.D) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, and another. … Respondents. ! Counsel for Petitioner: Sri G.Vidyasagar ^Counsel for the respondents: GP for Home and (SC for APHC),P.V.Sanjay Kumar <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1. 2001 (5) ALD 212 2. AIR 1971 SC 1850 3. (1997) 5 SCC 1 4. AIR 1998 SC 1079 5. (2004) 1 SCC 334 6. (2004) 2 SCC 150 7. (2007) 3 SCC 637 8. 2004 AIR SCW 5441 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.2167 of 2008 Between: Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges Association, Regd.No. 2803/1996, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary Mr.P. Venkateshwarlu S/o. Late Sri P. Jangaiah, aged 32 yrs, C/o. Court Master's Section, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Home (Courts.D) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The High Court of A.P. Rep. by its Registrar (Administration) High Court of .A.P. , Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the letter No.4157/Courts.D1/2007-1, dt.6.9.2007 issued by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to approve the scale of Pay of Rs.10,845 – Rs.22,955/- instead of Rs.9285-Rs.19,775/- of the revised pay scales, 2003 to the members of the petitioner association as recommended by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh with all consequential benefits and pass other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR HOME FOR RR (SC FOR APHC),P.V.SANJAY KUMAR FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2167 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is an Association of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to Hon’ble Judges, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (the Association, for brevity). The Association feels that for the arduous nature of work they attend to, their salary in the scale of pay of Rs.9285- 19775 is less, and that they are underpaid. Seeking redressal with this grievance, they petitioned the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The same was considered favourably and a letter was addressed requesting the Government to issue necessary orders to grant scale of pay of Rs.10845 – 22955 instead of existing 2005 revised scale of pay of Rs.9285 – 19775. The Government by their letter dated 06.09.2007 addressed by the Secretary to Government, Home (Courts.D) Department, addressed to the Registrar (Administration), rejected the recommendation, further stating that the matter may be referred to next Pay Revision Commission (PRC). This is impugned in this Writ Petition. The Secretary to Government, Legislative Affairs & Justice Law Department, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Government justifying the impugned memo. Their case is that PRC has already allowed one stage benefit to all categories in the pay scales of Rs.5980 – 12100 (1999) by allowing the scale of pay of Rs.9285 – 19775 and revised scale of pay of 2005 and One Man Commission (OMC) revised the scale of pay to Rs.9285 – 21550. Therefore, there is no anomaly, and Court Masters/Personal Secretaries to Hon’ble Judges & Registrars (hereafter cumulatively called, Courts Masters), have parity with Section Officers in Secretariat. It is further stated that based on the recommendations of PRC – 2005, revised scales of pay 2005 were allowed to other employees vide G.O.(P) No.213, Finance (PC.I), Department, dated 27.08.2005. These scales were extended to various staff of Andhra Pradesh High Court vide G.O.(P).No.79, Finance (PC.I) Department, dated 04.04.2006. As per Schedule - II (A) in the said Government Orders, the Court Masters are having corresponding post of Section Officer in the Secretariat and have parity with Section Officers. Subsequently, based on the recommendations of OMC, orders were issued in G.O.(P).No.180, dated 29.06.2006, implementing the revised scales of pay 2005 with effect from 01.07.2003 with monetary benefit from 01.04.2005. These were also extended to employees of High Court vide G.O.(P) No.301, Finance (PC.I) Department, dated 17.10.2006, duly issuing amendment to G.O.(P) No.79, dated 04.04.2006. The counter of the Government further states that in successive pay revisions in 1986, 1993, 1999, 2005 as well as OMC revised scales of pay, Section Officers of Secretariat and Court Masters always had pay parity, and if the enhancement of Court Masters’ pay to Rs.10845 – 22955 is considered, the traditional parity of pay revision already established will be disturbed. This will have serious implications for the state Government, because all the Section Officers in Secretariat would also demand higher pay scale, and this in turn can start a process of chain reaction of higher pay scales to their next promotion categories and equivalent cadres in various departments also, which will have huge financial implications for the State Government. The issue of allowing higher pay scales to the employees has to be decided by the independent body like PRC, but not by the Government. There is no justification to revise the pay scales to Rs.10845 – 22955 (which was revised to Rs.10845 – 25600 as per OMC recommendations). The Registrar (Administration), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, has filed counter affidavit stating that the representation of the Association was considered after obtaining the information from 15 High Courts, and then Hon’ble the Chief Justice decided to recommend to the Government to grant high scale of pay to the Court Masters. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Association submits that when the Chief Justice is conferred with exclusive power under Article 229 of the Constitution of India in the matter of appointment of Officers and servants (hereafter called, employees) of the High Court, ordinarily the recommendations of the Hon’ble Chief Justice cannot be rejected by the Government. He also points out that the power conferred on the Chief Justice under Article 229(1) of the Constitution to sanction posts, fix/revise scales of pay, make rules for appointment of Officers and servants in the High Court is subject to any law made by the Legislature of the State, and till such law is made, the conditions of service of employees of High Court shall be as prescribed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice or his nominee. Therefore, the learned Counsel would urge that it was well within the powers of the Chief Justice to recommend higher scales of pay to the Court Masters, and the Government acted unconstitutionally in rejecting the recommendation. He would also urge that when the High Court has taken into consideration the scales of pay allowed to Court Masters in various High Courts in India and thought it fit to grant upwardly revised scale of pay to Court Masters, Government could not have rejected the same. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Personal Secretaries and Court Masters Association v Secretary, Finance[1], and a recent unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us are member (VVSRJ), in Sri P.Hari Hara Prasad v The High Court of A.P (W.P.No.18415 of 2002, dated 11.06.2008) in support of the contentions. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterated various contentions reflected in the counter. The Division Bench in P.Hari Hara Prasad (supra) was dealing with the question whether the Government of Andhra Pradesh can reject the recommendation of Hon’ble the Chief Justice for upgradation of post of Deputy Section Officers to that of Section Officers. The Division Bench made reference to M.Gurumoorthy v Accountant General[2], State of U.P v C.L.Agrawal[3], High Court of Rajasthan v Ramesh Chand Paliwal[4], Personal Secretaries and Court Masters Association (supra), High Court Employees’ Welfare Association, Calcutta v State of West Bengal[5], Union of India v S.B.Vohra[6], High Court Employees’ Association, Calcutta v State of West Bengal[7] and State of U.P. v. Section Officer Brotherhood[8] and extracted the ratio of the judgments with regard to the scope and power conferred on the Hon’ble the Chief Justice under Article 229(1) and (2) of the Constitution. We may summarize the principles for the sake of convenience as below. 1. In the matter of appointment of employees of High Court, it is Hon’ble the Chief Justice or his nominee, who is to be the supreme authority. There can be no interference by the executive except to the limited extent as provided in the Article. This is essentially to secure and maintain the independence of the High Courts. 2. The administrative expenses of the High Court including all salaries, allowances and pension of employees cannot be varied even by the legislature. 3. Article 229(1) read with Article 229(2) of the Constitution confers exclusive power on Hon’ble the Chief Justice to prescribe conditions of service of employees of the High Court. 4. The Hon’ble Chief Justice has also power to make rules regulating the conditions of service, and those rules are subject to approval of Governor, only when such rules relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pension; 5. Once the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the interest of administration takes steps to ameliorate service conditions of employees, the State Government can hardly raise any objection for sanction and creation of posts or fixation of salary payable for that post or revision of scale of pay; 6. Though the approval of the Governor (Government) is condition precedent to the validity of the rules made by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice relating to allowances, leave or pension, ordinarily the Government cannot refuse approval unless there are justifiable reasons not to approve the same. The constitutional functionaries must remember that high functionaries like the Hon’ble the Chief Justice before framing any rules or granting any pay scale to employees is expected to consider all relevant aspects in rationale manner; 7. Hon’ble the Chief Justice has also got power to create posts in the High Court, and ordinarily, as creation of posts also requires fixation of scales of pay and other allowances, the same is also subject to approval of the Government. On the view that the rules made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the decision to create posts and/or grant scales of pay would involve financial burden, the Government cannot ordinarily straightaway reject the recommendation made by the High Court. In such event, the State should take steps to discuss with the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and arrive at a consensus, and when a grievance is made by the concerned in relation to non-acceptance of the recommendation of the High Court, in a petition for judicial review, ordinarily, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. The Court on judicial side “ought to refer the matter back to the Central Government/State Government with suitable directions pointing out the irrelevant factors which are required to be excluded in taking the decision and the relevant factors which are required to be considered therefor.” In view of above principles, the validity of the impugned order, in our considered opinion cannot be sustained. The communication sent by the Registrar (General) (FAC Registrar (Administration)) on 13.02.2007 to the extent relevant reads as under. HYDERABAD, Dated:13.02.2007. R.O.C.No.3600/2007-Estt.I To The Secretary to Government, Finance and Planning (Finance Wing T.A.) Department, Government of A.P., A.P.Secretariat, HYDERABAD. Sir, Sub: ESTABLISHMENT – HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD – For grant of higher scale of pay of Rs.10845 – 22955 instead of existing scale of pay of Rs.9285 – 19775 to the Personal Secretaries to the Honourable Judges & Registrars and Court Masters – Request – Regarding. Ref: 1) G.O.Ms.No.79, Finance (PC.I) Department, dated 04.04.2006. 2) Representation dated 26.09.2005 from the Personal Secretaries to the Honourable Judges and Court Masters. * * * * With reference to the subject cited, I am to state that, the Government have issued orders in the reference 1st cited, recommending the scale of pay of Rs.9285 – 235 –9520 – 255 – 10285 – 280 – 11125 – 295 – 12010 – 315 – 12955 – 330 – 13945 – 360 – 15025 – 390 – 16195 – 420 – 17455 – 450 – 18805 – 485 – 19775 in the revised pay scales of 2005 to the Personal Secretaries to the Honourable Judges and Court Masters. The Personal Secretaries to the Honourable Judges and Court Masters Association of the High Court made a representation to the Honourable Chief Justice for grant of higher scale of pay of Rs.10845 – 280 – 11125 – 295 – 12010 – 315 – 12955 – 330 – 13945 – 360 – 15025 – 390 – 16195 – 420 – 17455 – 450 – 18805 – 485 – 20260 – 525 – 21835 – 560 – 22955 instead of existing scale of pay of Rs. 9285 – 235 –9520 – 255 – 10285 – 280 – 11125 – 295 – 12010 – 315 – 12955 – 330 – 13945 – 360 – 15025 – 390 – 16195 – 420 – 17455 – 450 – 18805 – 485 – 19775. The representation has been accepted by the Honourable Chief Justice and decided to recommend to the Government to grant scale of pay of Rs.10845 – 22955 instead of existing scale of pay of Rs.9285 – 19775 (Revised Pay Scales, 2005). I am directed to request the Government to issue necessary orders in this regard as early as possible. I am further to state that on grant of above scale of pay, the additional expenditure for the financial year 2007 – 2008 would be Rs.51,11,832/- and the said expenditure can be met from within the budget provisions of the High Court i.e., MH – 102 (O4) High Court (Charged) under 2014 Administration of Justice. Yours sincerely, Sd/- REGISTRAR GENERAL F.A.C. THE REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) ____________________________________________________________ In response thereto, the Secretary to Government in Home (Courts.D) Department sent the following letter of rejection. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HOME (COURTS.D) DEPARTMENT Letter No.4147/Courts.D1/2007-1 From To The Secretary to Government, The Registrar (Administration), Home (Courts.D) Dept., High Court of Andhra Pradesh, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Sir, HYDERABAD: DATED 6.9.2007 Sub: Estt. High Court of A.P., Hyd. – Requesting for grant of higher scale of pay of RS.10845 – 22955 instead of existing scale of pay of Rs.9285 – 19775 to the Personal Secretaries to the Hon’ble Judges & Registrars and Court Masters – Reg. Ref: 1) G.O.Ms.No.79, Finance (PC.I) Dept., Dt.4.4.2006 2) Representation dt.26.9.2005 from the Personal Secretaries to the Hon’ble Judges and Court Masters. 3) Letter Roc.No.3600/2007 – Estt.1, dt.13.2.2007 from the Registrar General FAC. Registrar (Admn.), High Court of A.P., Hyd. I am directed to invite your attention to the reference 3rd cited and to inform that the Personal Secretaries, Court Masters, in High Court have established a parity with the Section Officers in Secretariat in all successive Pay Revision Commissions. Moreover, the P.R.C.2005 have already allowed on stage benefit to all categories in the pay scales of Rs.5980 – 12100 (1999) by allowing the scale of pay of Rs.9285 – 19775 and R.P.S.2005, OMC revised the scale of pay to Rs.9285 – 21550. In view of the above, as there is no anomaly and the posts of Personal Secretaries/Court Masters of High Court are having a parity with the Section Officers in Secretariat, I am to state that the matter may be referred to the next Pay Revision Commission. It is issued as advised by the Finance (PC.I) Dept. vide their U.O.N.5559/93/A1/PC.1/07, dt.29.8.2007. Yours faithfully, Sd/- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT In the counter affidavit of the High Court it is now brought out that the High Court obtained information as to the details of pay & allowances, and emoluments being drawn by the Court Masters in about 15 High Courts of other States in India, and then, Hon’ble the Chief Justice decided to recommend to the Government the scale of pay of Rs.10845 – 22955 instead of existing scale of pay. The relevant file is placed before this Court. It reveals that the representation made by the Association was placed before the Committee of two senior Judges. As directed by them, letters were addressed to various High Courts. The High Courts of Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Kerela, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Madras, Guwahati, Allahabad, Kolkata, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand sent information. On analysis of this information, it was found that in all the High Courts the Stenographers with designation as Secretary, Court Secretary, Private Secretary, Judgment Writer etc., were drawing a higher scale of pay than what is granted to the Court Masters in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. When the matter was placed before the Committee, the Committee resolved to recommend to the Government to grant scale of pay of Rs.10845 – 22955 to the Court Masters. After the recommendation of the Committee, which was approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, letter was addressed on 13.02.2007. The High Court never requested the Government to approve the recommendation of Hon’ble the Chief Justice for higher scale of pay on the ground that there is no parity between the Section Officers in the Secretariat and Court Masters in the High Court. Be it noted, as per Rule 21(3) read with Schedule – III of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975, the posts of Court Masters are equated to the posts of Reporters in the Legislature Secretariat, and not Section Officers in the Secretariat. Secondly, the upward revision of scale of pay for Court Masters was recommended by Hon’ble the Chief Justice taking into consideration the scale of pay attached to similar posts in other High Courts. It is no doubt true that these facts were not mentioned in the letter addressed by the High Court. In such an event, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in State of U.P v C.L.Agrawal (supra) and High Court Employees’ Welfare Association, Calcutta v State of West Bengal (supra), differences between the Government and High Court should be mutually discussed and tried to be solved, especially, when the matter involves financial implications. The law laid down by the Supreme Court has been given a goby by the Government, and in one go, the recommendation of Hon’ble the Chief Justice was rejected advising that the matter can be referred to next PRC. The way the matter has been dealt with by the Government cannot be appreciated by this Court. We may also point out that the reason for rejecting the recommendation by Hon’ble the Chief Justice is irrelevant for the purpose of consideration and what is relevant factor ought to have been discussed by the Government with High Court. In the result, for the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is referred back to the Government with a direction to take up the matter with the High Court, initiate consultation and arrive at a decision in the matter of granting scale of pay of Rs.10845 – 22955 instead of existing scale of Rs.9285 – 19775 (Revised Pay Scale 2005) to the Court Masters. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, we desist from making any order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ 25.06.2008 (G.CHANDRAIAH, J) NOTE L.R.Copy be marked. (By order) vs To 1 The Secretary, Home (Courts.D) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P. High Court of .A.P. , Hyderabad. 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] 2001 (5) ALD 212 [2] AIR 1971 SC 1850 [3] (1997) 5 SCC 1 [4] AIR 1998 SC 1079 [5] (2004) 1 SCC 334 [6] (2004) 2 SCC 150 [7] (2007) 3 SCC 637 [8] 2004 AIR SCW 5441