WP(C) 5168/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE B. S. REDDY THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY JUDGMENT AND ORDER HRISHIKESH ROY, J. Heard Mr. U. K. Nair, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms B. Goyal, learned advocate representing the State and Mr. B. C. Das, learned senior advoca te for the respondent No.2. The present petition has been filed by a Grade-IV appointee in the estab lishment of District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta making a grievance of non-payment of his salary from the month of January,2006. The petitioner has prayed for a d irection for payment of his arrear salary as well as for further direction for e nsuring timely disbursal of his salary and allowances by the respondent-authorit ies. 2. The writ petitioner on the basis of appointment order dated 20-1-98 (Annexure-1) issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati was appo inted as a ’Mali’ at a fixed salary of Rs.900/- per month. It is averred that th e said appointment had been made as per the practice and procedure followed for a long time whereby under the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge, en gagement of Grade-IV employees, in the event of requirement, is permissible. By the nature of engagement of the writ petitioner, he was attached to M r. K. Sarma, District & Sessions Judge and movement of the Judge by way of trans fer, also entailed movement of the writ petitioner as per the posting of the sai d District & Sessions Judge. In such manner, the petitioner has served in differ ent places in different capacities and copies of orders of engagement of the pet itioner are collectively enclosed to the writ petition as Annexure-2 series. 3. Eventually when Mr. K. Sarma was posted as the District & Sessions Judge , Barpeta, the petitioner was appointed as a ’Mali’ on wage basis in the residen tial bungalow of the Judge by issuance of appointment order dated 19-5-05. While the petitioner was engaged as aforesaid, a post of office Peon fel l vacant under the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta becau se of promotion of the regular incumbent to a higher post. The petitioner being eligible applied for appointment to the said post of office Peon. 4. Thereafter, as per the established practice and procedure followed over a number of years, a selection Board was constituted for making selection for ap pointment to the post of office Peon and the petitioner having been found suitab le, recommendation for his appointment against the said post was made by the sel ection Board. Following the said recommendation, the District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta issued an appointment order dated 1-12-05 (Annexure-4) appointing the w rit petitioner as office Peon in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Ba rpeta. The said appointment in the scale of pay of Rs.2450-3670/- per month was made against the vacancy created on promotion of one Brajen Das, the earlier inc umbent in the said post. 5. On getting the appointment as aforesaid the writ petitioner immediately joined as an office Peon and it appears that he also received salary for the mon th of December,2005. But from the month of January,2006 onwards the petitioner w as not paid his salary. The District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta thereafter made correspondences w ith the Judicial Department of Government of Assam for ensuring salary payment t o the petitioner. In response, through letter dated 21-4-2006 (Annexure-6) it wa s indicated by the Deputy Secretary of the Judicial Department, Assam that after the dissolution of the State Level Empowered Committee, (S.L.E.C.) it is necess ary to obtain the concurrence of the Finance Department for making direct recrui tment and the District & Sessions judge, Barpeta was asked to furnish justificat ion through the Registrar General of the High Court so that Finance department c ould be moved for their concurrence. Further correspondences were exchanged between the authorities in the St ate Government and the court but possibly because concurrence was not given by t he Finance Department, the salary of the petitioner was not paid. 6. Being aggrieved by non-payment of salary, the writ petitioner has approa ched this court seeking appropriate direction in the matter of payment of his sa lary. 7. In response to the notice issued by the court, an affidavit on behalf of the District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta, respondent No.2 has been filed wherein the circumstances leading to appointment of the petitioner were indicated. 8. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent-State where in it has been indicated in so far as appointments under the High Court and its subordinate courts are concerned, the same were exempted from the purview of S.L .E.C. in respect of appointments in the respective establishment. It was categor ically averred that the concerned appointing authority is competent to make appo intments falling within its jurisdiction. 9. Mr. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted tha t in respect of appointments to be made under the establishments of the High Cou rt or its subordinate courts, as in the present case, the insistence by the Gove rnment for approval of the Finance Department for making payment of salaries of such appointees is uncalled for. It is submitted that in terms of the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the control over the employees und er the District Court is exclusively vested in the High Court and the insistence on getting the concurrence of the Finance Department of Assam is not required i n respect of a appointee under the establishment of District & Sessions Judge. The learned counsel referred to the decisions in Md. Ghouse Vs State of Andhra P radesh reported in AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh 497, wherein a discussion on the scop e and ambit of the provisions of Article 235 has been made. In the said decision , it has been held with reference to the provisions of Articles 227 and 235 that the use of the word ’court’ not only includes the persons presiding over the co urt but all the functionaries of that court and any matters pertaining thereto. The power of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution has been inter preted to mean that the said power is to be exercised in relation to the persons presiding over the courts and in relation to the conditions of their services. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this court to the Full Bench decisio n in Amar Singh Vs the Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in A IR 1976 Punjab & Haryana 215, wherein it has been categorically held that by vir tue of Article 235 of the Constitution, the High Court is vested with the contro l over the functionaries and ministerial staff attached to the District courts a nd the courts subordinate thereto. It is further clarified that the High Court a lone is the best judge of the functionaries and ministerial staff of the subordi nate courts and any impinging of such authority of the High Court in respect of such subordinate staff by an external agency would be an intrusion into the fiel d of control exclusively given to the High Court. Attention of this court has also been drawn to the decision of the Gujar at High Court in R. M. Gajjar Vs State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1978 Gujarat 1 02 wherein the Gujarat High Court approved the Full Bench decision of Amar Singh (supra) of the Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as the decision of Md. Ghous e (supra) of the Andhra Pradesh High court and held that control vested in the H igh courts under Article 235 of the Constitution is exercisable not only over me mbers of the Judicial Service but also over the ministerial staff and servants o f the establishment of the subordinate courts. The decisions of the Apex court in State of West Bengal Vs Nripendra Nath Bagchi reported in AIR 1966 SC 447 and R. M Gurjar Vs High Court of Gujarat reported i n (1992) 4 SCC 10 have also been cited with reference to the scope and ambit of the powers exercisable by the High Court under the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the employees under the establishment of District & Sessions Judge such as the writ petitioner, it would be the High Court alone and not the Gover nment of Assam or its Department of Finance which would exercise control on the mode and manner of appointment of subordinate staff and the payment of their sa laries. 10. Having regard to the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of In dia, it is seen that the High Court exercises control not only in respect of the Judicial Officers but also in respect of ministerial and subordinate staff work ing under the courts functioning under the High Court. This has been the consist ent view taken by the courts. Having noted the ratio laid down in decisions cite d, this court is of the opinion that in respect of the appointment of the writ p etitioner, it is the High Court alone which will have jurisdiction and the insis tence on concurrence of the Finance Department of the Government of Assam for pa yment of salary to such appointee, has to be considered to be an unauthorized in trusion into an arena over which the High Court exercises exclusive control. Therefore, the stand taken in the counter affidavit by the State of Assa m indicating that the High Court and its subordinate courts are exempted from t he purview of the Government appointed S.L.E.C. in respect of appointments in th eir respective establishment appear to be the correct view in matters of such ap pointments. 11. Having reached the conclusion as aforesaid, this court finds no difficul ty in holding that concurrence of the Finance Department is unnecessary for paym ent of salary to the writ petitioner. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the withholding of salary of the petitioner on the ground of absence of concurrence of the Finance Department is unjustified. Accordingly, an order for payment of s alary due to the petitioner from the month of January,2006 is made. The petitio ner shall also be paid his regular salary without insisting on concurrence of th e Finance department for such payment. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the above directions. No cost. This order is directed to be complied with by the respondents within 4 ( four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Dispatch copy of this order within one week.