IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16085 of 2007 1. BRAJESH BHUSHAN, son of late Jagadish Sharan, resident of Arya Kumar Road, Machchuatoli, Patna – 800 004, and posted as Junior Translator, Translation Department, High Court, Patna. 2. MD. ATAULLAH, son of late Md. Afzal, resident of Village – Bherihari, Police Station – Prushottampur, District – West Champaran, Bihar, presently residing at Mohalla – Sabazpura, F.C.I. Road, Phulwari Sharif, Patna and posted as Junior Translator, Translation Department, High Court, Patna. _______ Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary to the Government, Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Special Secretary to the Government, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Patna High Court through its Registrar General, Patna. ----------- For the petitioners: M/S. Binod Kumar Kanth, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Bindhyachal Singh. For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh. For the High Court: Mr. Piush Lal. ------- 07. 12.8.2010 The petitioners want quashing of the letter dated 22.10.2007 which is a communication from the Department of Finance, Government of Bihar under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, to the Registrar General, Patna High Court, conveying the decision of the State Government that the request of the High Court for merging the post of Junior Translator and Translator and giving them a pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 has been rejected by the State. 2 In exercise of powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India the Hon`ble Chief Justice of the High Court appointed a committee of 5 Hon`ble Judges to make recommendations with regard to the pay-scales of the employees of the High Court in light of Rule 25 of the Patna High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1997. The 5- Members Committee made its recommendation which was accepted by the Hon`ble Chief Justice and the said recommendation came to be forwarded to the State of Bihar as would be evident from perusal of Annexure-3 to the writ application. Most of the recommendations were accepted and implemented by the State Government but it is non-implementation of the recommendation relating to the cadre of translators of the High Court that we are concerned with. The recommendation with regard to the translators of the High Court was to merge the post of Junior Translator and Translator into one and give them pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000, which was to be atleast at par with the assistants working with the State Government. Since the State Government did not accept this part of the recommendation, petitioners pleaded discrimination and irrationality on the part of the State since other recommendations had been accepted and implemented. Some of the employees working in the Translation Department moved the High Court in CWJC No. 7660 of 2000. Matter was heard and disposed of vide order dated 8.2.2007. The 3 said order is Annexure-5 to the writ application. After taking brief note of the background to the dispute and expressing an opinion on the claim of those petitioners, learned single Judge directed the authorities to sit across the table and resolve the issue. The Court opined that the Finance Secretary will nominate three persons along with the nominee of the Chief Justice, who will sit across the table and iron out the differences. As part of that exercise a meeting dated 26.4.2007 was held. Minutes thereof have been produced before this Court. Based on the deliberation of the meeting dated 26.4.2007, the Registrar General wrote a letter dated 5th September, 2005, which is Annexure-7 to the writ application. The letter categorically notes the background to the request, the recommendation of the 5-Judges Committee, the deliberations made in the meeting dated 26.4.2007 with a clear indication that the so-called fresh recommendation to be made by the High Court was being conveyed through the said communication with specific statement that earlier recommendation made by the 5-Judges Committee ought to be treated as a fresh recommendation for consideration. The communication contained in Annexure-8 is the answer to such a communication made by the Registrar General, which is being challenged in the present writ application. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners submits that reading of the communication would show the cavalier attitude of the State in a manner in which request of the 4 High Court has been dealt with. It is a cryptic four lines communication which says that the recommendation has been rejected by the State on “SAMYAK BICHAROPARANT”. What does this word mean or convey is more of a guess work to be done by the court or the petitioners since it conveys nothing. It was because of the non-acceptance of the request of the High Court made earlier and singling out the translators for such a treatment that the matter had travelled to the Court and the Court had occasion to record what it did in the order contained in Annexure-5. In fact, if one looks at the order brought on record in annexure-6, the Court was made to understand that the issue was going to be favourably resolved in view of the unanimity reached. The writ petition came to be disposed of on that impression. The facts stand that the communication contained in Annexure-8 does not show any unanimity or resolution of the issue in any manner despite the magnanimity shown by the High Court in its effort to get the matter resolved as would be evident from Annexures 5 and 6. From the counter affidavit the reason which seems to have weighed with the respondents in rejecting the request is non- furnishing of a fresh recommendation by the High Court. Since there was no fresh recommendation the State authorities stuck to its earlier decision of not accepting the recommendation. But the question arises whether it was a case of failure of the High Court to make a fresh recommendation as is the stand of the respondents 5 or failure to understand the issue by the respondents. This Court has some difficulty in accepting the stand taken by the State which is neither fair nor does it reflect the actual state of affairs. If the communication of the Registrar General is read as a whole, then it is abundantly clear that the Registrar General communicated to the State that after the discussions and deliberations the earlier recommendation made by the 5-Judges Committee did not require any reconsideration. In fact, the same recommendation was put up afresh to be considered by the respondents as a fresh proposal. But by misreading such a communication the cryptic order of rejection has been passed. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that it is a case of non-application of mind by the respondent authorities. Whether this communication was deliberate or due to lack of understanding, this Court would not like to investigate or certify. But the Court has no hesitation in recording that the matter does require reconsideration in light of communication made by the Registrar General in this regard which is dated 6.8.2007. Learned senior counsel submits that on the basis of the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee the pay band for the three posts has been brought within the ambit of one pay band and necessary recommendations for replacement scales have been made. But that in no manner answers the issue which has been raised by the petitioners in the present writ application. Such a subsequent development still does not take away the dispute or 6 the issue and the recommendations made by the 5-Judges Committee so far as the employees of the Translation Department of High Court is concerned. It is submitted that even if their case is considered afresh, they are more than willing to give up their claim of arrears of pay due to revision of pay-scale in terms of the recommendations of the High Court from 1.1.1996 and other benefits of similar kind. They will be more than happy if only notional benefit of the kind flows in their favour so that the discrimination by non-acceptance of the earlier proposal vis-à-vis other employees can still be remedied and there may not be any substantial outlay of money or funds on this score. If the grievances are reconsidered afresh in light of what has been categorically stated on behalf of these petitioners or similarly situated employees of the Translation Department, then there could be an occasion for arriving at some kind of consensus. Irrespective of various decisions which have been cited at the bar and the principle decided by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in matters of the kind, this Court disposes of the writ application after quashing Annexure-8 with a direction upon the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, that a fresh decision on this score would be required to be taken and communicated to the High Court afresh. The writ application is allowed with an expectation that an early decision would be made in this regard. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)