Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld this contention solely on the ground that according to the Rules these were equal status posts. It was accordingly decided that the Superintendents should not be treated differently than Private Secretaries and Court Masters, and a direction was issued to the respondents to give to the Superintendents the scale of Rs. 775-1200.

26. The Union of India filed a special leave petition against the decision to the Delhi High Court in Sangram Singh's case but the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being special leave petition No. 8934 of 1982, dated 3-12-1982 (Union of India v. Sangram Singh).'

27. Thereafter, the Delhi High Court in Hari Lal Sharma and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., in Writ Petition No. 2756 of 1991, decided on 14-11-1991, following the ratio of the decision of this Court in Sangram Singh's (supra) held that the petitioners and the Private Secretaries must be paid the same scale of pay. We are aware of the fact that the scale of pay of the Private Secretaries has been raised to that of Rs. 3000-4500 as a result of decision of this Court. This will not make any differences because the functions which all the three categories or employees perform may not be exactly similar or identical but they are not very different from each other. As according to the Rules they are equal status posts in all fairness they should get the same scale of pay specially when all the three categories of posts are feeder posts to the next higher grade of Assistant Registrar. There is a common seniority list which is maintained and it will be incongruous, if officers on the same common seniority list holding equal status posts are given different scales of pay.

41. In the instant case the petitioners claimed parity with the Superintendent of Delhi High Court, when the fact remains that the posts of Section Officers are and were very well in existence in the Central Secretariat, then the petitioners cannot claim parity with the Superintendent of the Delhi High Court.

42. It has also been urged by the learned Advocate General that the employees of the Delhi High Court namely Court Masters, Superintendents and Private Secretaries, in accordance with the Rules gramed by the Delhi High Court under Article 229(2), have been enjoying the benefits of common seniority and the said posts of Court Masters, Superintendents and Private Secretaries have been held under the said Rules as equivalent or equated posts and further these posts have been held to be interchangeable under the said Rules. But on perusal of the provisions of 1976 service Rules, annexed by the petitioners themselves, would clearly show that there is no provision any common seniority list from amongst the Private Secretaries, Bench Secretaries and Section Officers of this Court. These posts have nowhere been categorised and held as equivalent, equated or having equal status posts and the said posts under the 1976 Rules of this Court have not been held as interchangeable posts has been done in the Rules applicable to the employees/officers of Delhi High Court.

77. As we have pointed out earlier the posts of Private Secretaries, Bench Secretaries Grade I and Section Officers in the High Court of Allahabad were always treated at par with each other and they were getting the same pay scale with identical status. Similarly, the post of Court Master, Superintendent and Private Secretaries at Delhi High Court are equally status posts. The Assistant Registrar which is a promotional post may be filled up in the High Court from either of the three posts who were getting similar pay scale up to 21-12-98. But in Delhi High Court the posts are interchangeable and the common seniority list of Court Master, Superintendent and Private Secretaries is maintained.