- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of H.P v. P.D Attri And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal was filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging a Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dated 21-05-1992. In the writ proceedings below, certain Senior Translators and Junior Translators employed in the High Court sought redesignation of their posts and parity in pay scales with their counterparts in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, effective from 23-01-1975. The High Court allowed the writ, directing the State Government to grant approval for such redesignation/equation and to implement consequential benefits within a specified time-frame. Dissatisfied, the State brought the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh is legally bound to adopt every change in service rules and pay scales effected by the Punjab & Haryana High Court for analogous posts.
- Whether the respondent employees are entitled, as a matter of law, to redesignation and pay-scale parity with effect from 23-01-1975 (or any other date) merely on the basis of earlier practice and policy.
- What is the legal effect of recommendations made by the Chief Justice of a High Court to the State Government under Article 229 of the Constitution when the State Government neither accepts nor communicates a decision on those recommendations.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant — State of Himachal Pradesh
- Contended that no constitutional or statutory provision obliges the State to replicate every modification adopted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in its service rules or pay scales.
- Argued that “accepted policy and common practice” cannot override the State’s autonomy under the Constitution.
- Submitted that the impugned High Court direction effectively compels the State to follow rules of another State, which has no legal basis.
Respondents — Senior & Junior Translators
- Relied on the long-standing policy and practice of Himachal Pradesh to adopt pay scales sanctioned for employees of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
- In view of the Supreme Court decision in Punjab & Haryana High Court v. Sunder Sham Kapoor (1997) 9 SCC 174, expressed willingness to accept parity with effect from 05-08-1980 instead of 23-01-1975.
- Maintained that the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court had already recommended parity; the State’s failure to act on that recommendation justified judicial intervention.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sunder Sham Kapoor v. Hon’ble Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana High Court, (1987) 4 SLR 460 (P&H) | Held that Revisors/Translators in P&H High Court were entitled to redesignation and higher pay from 23-01-1975. | Cited as the basis of the High Court’s impugned order; noted that this precedent was later reversed by the Supreme Court. |
| Punjab & Haryana High Court v. Sunder Sham Kapoor, (1997) 9 SCC 174 | Reversed the 1987 P&H decision; limited entitlement to the revised scale from 05-08-1980, not 23-01-1975. | Supreme Court relied on this ruling to reject the respondents’ claim for parity from 23-01-1975. |
| Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187 | Emphasised that rules framed by the Chief Justice regarding service conditions deserve respectful consideration and ordinarily should receive approval. | Quoted to remind the State Government of the deference owed to recommendations of the Chief Justice under Article 229. |
| High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal, (1998) 3 SCC 72 | Reiterated the expectation that State Governments will normally approve creation of posts or revision of pay scales recommended by the Chief Justice. | Invoked to underline the State’s duty to respond promptly to the Chief Justice’s recommendations. |
| State of A.P. v. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthi, (1976) 2 SCC 883 | Expressed hope that approval under Article 229 would ordinarily be accorded. | Cited as historical support for the principle that executive approval should not be unreasonably withheld. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court observed that India’s federal structure allows each State to establish its own service conditions; no constitutional mandate compels Himachal Pradesh to mirror every alteration made in Punjab & Haryana.
2. The respondents’ claim rested solely on “accepted policy and common practice,” devoid of any pleaded constitutional or statutory violation; such undefined norms cannot override the State’s legislative autonomy.
3. Given the Supreme Court’s reversal in Sunder Sham Kapoor (1997) 9 SCC 174, even parity in the Punjab & Haryana High Court itself commences only from 05-08-1980, not 23-01-1975.
4. While the State is not legally obliged to follow another State’s pay structure, the recommendations of the Chief Justice under Article 229 command “due deference and utmost consideration.” The Court emphasised that the executive cannot indefinitely ignore such recommendations.
5. Balancing these principles, the Court concluded that the High Court’s writ direction—compelling the State to grant parity from 23-01-1975—was unsustainable, but nonetheless urged the State Government to decide expeditiously on the Chief Justice’s proposal in light of the governing law.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court judgment dated 21-05-1992 set aside.
Direct consequences: the respondents’ judicially enforced claim to redesignation and pay-scale parity from 23-01-1975 is vacated. The matter now rests with the State Government, which must consider the Chief Justice’s recommendations afresh, particularly in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling that any parity in the Punjab & Haryana High Court itself begins from 05-08-1980. No broader precedent on pay parity is established, but the decision reinforces (a) the autonomy of each State in determining service conditions, and (b) the executive’s constitutional responsibility to act on recommendations made by the Chief Justice under Article 229.
D.P Wadhwa, J.— The State of Himachal Pradesh in this appeal has challenged the judgment dated 21-5-1992 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 and Haryana High Court. The 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 Revisors and Translators and equate them with the posts of Superintendents Grade II and Assistants in the Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat from 23-1-1975 within two months from today and on receiving this approval, 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”.
2. In coming to this decision, the High Court was guided by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sunder Sham Kapoor v. Hon'ble Chief Justice, P&H High Court (1987) 4 SLR 460 (P&H). On the basis of this judgment, Chief Justice, Punjab and 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 and Haryana High Court and accordingly, the Chief Justice of the High Court had similarly recommended for the redesignation and equation of the posts in question from 23-1-1975. The aforesaid judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sunder Sham Kapoor case (1987) 4 SLR 460 (P&H) has been reversed by this Court in Punjab and Haryana High Court v. Sunder Sham Kapoor (1997) 9 SCC 174. This Court said that Revisors earlier designated as Translators would be entitled to revised pay scale from 5-8-1980 as per the order dated 17-11-1987 and not from 23-1-1975. At the beginning of the arguments, it was submitted before us by the respondents that they would be satisfied if this Court ordered that the respondents in the present case working in the High Court would be held entitled to similar pay scale as provided to their counterparts in the Punjab and Haryana High Court w.e.f 5-8-1980. We do not, however, think it is as simple as that.
3. The respondents before us are employees working in the establishment 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 and Haryana High Court are governed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973. Relevant provisions of these Rules of the 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 receiving 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. Similarly 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 the Punjab and 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. The respondents were given their new designations and scale of pay from 25-9-1985.
4. Subsequently, notification dated 23-1-1986 issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court was superseded by another notification dated 8-10-1987 whereby the Punjab and Haryana High Court Establishment (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1973 were given effect from 23-1-1975 instead of 25-9-1985. This was done there because of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sunder Sham Kapoor case (1987) 4 SLR 460 (P&H) as above mentioned. However, on that basis, the respondents represented to the Chief Justice of the High Court to allow them similar benefits from 23-1-1975. Their case was recommended by the Chief Justice to the State Government for obtaining approval of the Governor of the State for redesignation/equation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators from 23-1-1975 instead of 25-9-1985. Since no approval was received from the Governor of the State as recommended by the Chief Justice of the High Court, the respondents filed writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for redressal of their grievance. By the impugned judgment, the High Court agreed with their stand.
5. The case of the respondents is not based on any constitutional or any other legal provisions when they claim parity with the posts similarly designated in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and their pay scales from the same date. They do not allege any violation of any constitutional provision or any other provision of law. They say it is so because of “accepted policy and common practice” which, according to them, are undisputed. We do not think we can import such vague principles while interpreting the provisions of law. India is a union of States. Each State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution. One State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the other State or if it had adopted the same rules and regulations, it is not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other State. The question then arises before us is whether the State of Himachal Pradesh has to follow every change brought in the States of Punjab and Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to the employees in the States of Punjab and Haryana. The answer has to be in the negative. No argument is needed for that as anyone having basic knowledge of the Constitution would not argue otherwise. True, the State as per “policy and practice” has been adopting the same pay scales for the employees of the High Court as sanctioned from time to time for the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it may even now follow to grant pay scales but is certainly not bound to follow. No law commands it to do so.
6. The State of Punjab was reorganised into States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Himachal Pradesh, to begin with, was a Union Territory and was given the status of full statehood in 1970. Since employees of the composite State of Punjab were taken in various departments of the State of Himachal Pradesh in order to safeguard the seniority, pay scales, etc., the State of Himachal Pradesh followed the Punjab pattern of pay scales. After attaining the status of full statehood, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh formulated its own rules and regulations for its employees. It adopted the pattern of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules of their employees. When the Punjab and Haryana High Court gave effect to a certain portion of its Rules from 25-9-1985 by notification dated 23-1-1986 as a result of which redesignation of the posts of the Senior Translators and Junior Translators were equated to the posts in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, in the Himachal Pradesh High Court similar effect was given to in its rules for its employees. When the Punjab and Haryana High Court gave effect to those rules from 23-1-1975, the State Government did not agree to the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to follow the same suit. It is true that till now, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has been following the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it may go on following those rules as may be amended by the Punjab and Haryana High Court from time to time, but certainly it is not bound to so follow. No law commands the State Government to follow the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the employees of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. That being the position, it is not necessary for us to examine different qualifications for appointment to the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators that may exist between the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court and also as to the mode of their recruitment/placement in the service. Moreover, any change in the pay scale following the Punjab and Haryana High Court can set in motion chain reaction for other employees which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation among various categories of employees. Rules of each High Court have to be examined independently. There cannot be any such law that the Himachal Pradesh High Court has to suo motu follow the same rules as applicable to the employees working in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
7. 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 and Haryana High Court, no decision was communicated which led the respondents 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 in Sunder Sham Kapoor case (1997) 9 SCC 174 where Revisors in the Punjab and Haryana High Court are to be given benefit of pay scale of Superintendent (Grade II) from 5-8-1980 from which date the respondents 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 Assn. v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187, AIR 1990 SC 334, (1989) 3 SCR 488, JT (1989) 3 SC 188 (SCC para 57):
“57. So far as the Supreme Court and the High Courts are concerned, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned are empowered to frame rules subject to this that when the rules are framed by the Chief Justice of India or by the Chief Justice of the High Court relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, the approval of the President of India or the Governor, as the case may be, is required. It is apparent that the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court have been placed at a higher level in regard to the framing of rules containing the conditions of service. It is true that the President of India cannot be compelled to grant approval to the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, but it is equally true that when such rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted. If the President of India is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts between the President of India and the Chief Justice of India.”
8. This Court again in High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal (1998) 3 SCC 72, JT (1998) 2 SC 1 restated what a State Government is expected to do when recommendations are made by the Chief Justice of the High Court in the following words:
“25. Since, under the Constitution, the Chief Justice has also the power to make rules regulating the conditions of service of the officers and servants of the High Court, it is obvious that he can also prescribe the scale of salary payable for a particular post. This would also include the power to revise the scale of pay. Since such a rule would involve finances, it has been provided in the Constitution that it will require the approval of the Governor which, in other words, means the State Government. This Court in State of A.P v. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthi (1976) 2 SCC 883, AIR 1976 SC 123, (1976) 1 SCR 1008 had expressed the hope that ‘one should accept in the fitness of things and in view of the spirit of Article 229 that the approval, ordinarily and generally, would be accorded’. This was reiterated by this Court in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187, AIR 1990 SC 334, (1989) 3 SCR 488, JT (1989) 3 SC 188. We again reiterate the hope and feel that once the Chief Justice, in the interest of High Court administration, has taken a progressive step specially to ameliorate the service conditions of the officers and staff working under him, the State Government would hardly raise any objection to the sanction of creation of posts or fixation of salary payable for that post or the recommendation for revision of scale of pay if the scale of pay of the equivalent post in the Government has been revised.”
9. Recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court should be considered by the State Government having regard to the observations made above and decision taken at an early date.
10. With the observations aforesaid, this appeal is, however, allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Alert