Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

JUDGMENT 1999 (1) SCR 587 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.P. WADHWA, J. State of Himachal Pradesh in this appeal has challenged the judgment dated May 21, 1992 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the `High Court') allowing the writ petition filed by certain categories of employees of the High Court seeking parity in pay scale from a particular date and redesignation of their posts with the employees of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. High Court by the impugned judgment directed the State Government "to accord and convey the approval for the redesignation and equation of the posts of senior Translators and Junior Translators with Revisers and Translators and equate them with the posts of Superinten-dents Grade-II and Assistants in the Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat from 23.1.1975 within two months from today and on receiving this ap-proval, the second respondent will take the consequential steps within one month thereafter and grant such other and further reliefs to the petitioners that may flow out of the same".

In coming to this decision, High Court was guided by the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the Sunder Sham Kapur & Ors. v. Hon'ble Chief Justice & Ors., (1987) 4 SLR 460. On the basis of this judgment, Chief Justice Punjab & Haryana High Court had directed that the petitioners therein were entitled to the benefit of redesignation and equation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators from 23.1.1975. It was conceded before the High Court that since as per policy and practice, the State Government was adopting the pay-scales sanctioned for the officers and servants of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and accordingly the Chief Justice of the High Court had similarly recom-mended for the redesignation and equation of the posts in question from 23.1.1975. The aforesaid judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sunder Sham Kapur's case (supra) has been reversed by this Court in Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh through its Registrar v. Sunder Sham Kapoor & Ors., [1997] 9 SCC

The respondents before us are employees working in the estab-lishment of the High Court as Senior Translators and Junior Translators. They are governed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and Servants (Salaries, Leave, Allowance and Pension) Rules, 1971 (for short, the Rules). Similar posts in the establishment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court are governed by Punjab & Haryana High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973. Relevant provisions of these Rules of Punjab and Haryana High Court were given effect in that High Court w.e.f. 25.9.1985 as per notification dated 23.1.1986 after receiv-ing approval of the President of India under clause (2) of Article 229 read with Article 231 of the Constitution. As a result, posts of Senior Translators were redesignated as Revisors and equated with the posts of `Superintendent Grade-II in the Establishment of the Punjab Civil Secretariat. Similar-ly posts of Junior Translators were redesignated as Translators and equated with the posts of Assistant in the Establishment of the Punjab Civil Secretariat. Consequent upon the redesignation of these posts in Punjab & Haryana High Court, these posts were similarly redesignated/equated in the High Court by the Chief Justice after obtaining approval from the Governor of the State. That was by notification dated 17.6.1987. Respon-dents were given their new designations and scale of pay from 25.9.1985.

But then the fact remains that when the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court made recommendations to the Governor to redesignate/equate the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators in the Himachal Pradesh High Court to those in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, no decision was communicated which led the respondent to approach the High Court on its judicial side. 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 Sunder Sham Kapoor's case [1997] 9 SCC 174 where Revisers in the Punjab & Haryana High Court are to be given benefit of pay-scale of Superintendent (Grade- II) from 5.8.1980 from which date the respon-dents 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 Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, [1989] 4 SCC 187 para 57 :