KIND ATTENTION IS INVITED1 IN THIS CONNECTION TO THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THIS ISSUE Ï¿½ 1993 2 L W 69 J S P PERUMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the fifth decade, after the people of INdia, by adopting the Constitution, has declared it a Democratic Republic and recognised the Union and the State Judiciary as vital independent organs of the Union and the States, it is unfortunate that the Courts are required to determine disputes as to the conditions of services of the Judges of the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the Courts subordinate to the High Courts and the employees of such Courts. The Legislature has responded to the requirements of the Service Regulations of the High Court Judges by adopting the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, Act 28 of 1954, and thereafter by amendments, thereto, including the amendment Act, 38 of 1986, and introduced S. 22B to provide as follows: ?Every Judge shall be entitled to a staff tar and one hundred and fifty litres of petrol every month or the actual consumption of petrol per month, whichever is less?. thus casting a statutory obligation on the State to provide a chauffeur driven car to the Judges, implicit in this being that the chauffeurs shall be available to the Judges for all travels undertaken by them and the car allotted for use as such befitting the class and status of the Judges of the High Courts and kept in such state of repair as is fit for use any time in keeping with the high status of a Judge of the High Court.

(2.) PETITIONERS herein are drivers working under the control of the third respondent, the Registrar, High Court, Madras, and are attached as chauffeurs to the cars provided to the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. They were so appointed on the upgradation of their posts of Office Assistants in the year 1988. They, however, found that they were expected to attend to their work as a chauffeur driving the car provided to the Hon'ble Judges at any time and whenever required by their Judges and they have no fixed hours of duty and they have to remain at work in the late nights, drive to various places, go to workshops and their residences after leaving the cars in the office or the workshop or the residence of the Hon'ble Judges. They are required to report to duty at the residence of the Hon'ble Judges even on holidays including public holidays for which they are not entitled to claim any compensatory leave, overtime, etc. There is no fixed time or work schedule as such and they are required to report to work on many occasions in the early mornings depending upon the needs of the Hon'ble Judges and in the late evenings or nights to take the Hon'ble Judges on such travels as they undertake either for official purposes or for private purposes. The only allowance paid to them is in a sum of Rs. 10/- on days when they have to work for more than nine hours but even this allowance is not paid for holidays, Saturdays and Sundays. They noticed, however, that the drivers allotted to the Hon'ble Ministers and the State Guest Houses were given bus passes valid for all city routes to facilitate their reporting and return as and when they are required for duty. Since the petitioners are also employed in more or less similar conditions they represented to the third respondent, Registrar of the High Court, that they were discriminated by not providing the same facilities in lieu of allowance of valid bus passes for all city routes on all days. The third respondent as directed accordingly wrote to the State Government, vide, Letter No. 3664/A/91 Estt. I(A4) dated 4.10.1991, and again on 24.3.1992, which letters were replied by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Services I) Department on 28.7.1992. In his letter dated 28.7.1992, the Deputy Secretary stated that the Registrar, High Court, is classified as one of the Heads of Department in the Tamil Nadu Financial Code, and as per orders in G.O.Ms. No. 1015, Finance Department dated 27.10.1986, the drivers working in the Registry are eligible only for two way bus passes for the journey from the residence to the place where the vehicle is parked and back, like drivers attached to other Heads of Department. He also stated therein that the nature of the duty discharged by the drivers in the Secretariat is entirely different from that of the High Court and that- ?The drivers under the establishment control of Public (MV) Department are attached to Ministers, Secretaries to Government, Government Whip and VVIPs and their work is onerous. They are expected to attend the work then and there and at short notice. They have to remain at work at late night also. Whereas in the case of drivers of the High Court, their work is very limited and their work cannot be compared with that of the Secretariat drivers.? The Registrar of the Court, as directed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, wrote, once again vide, D.O.Lr. No. 3664/A/91 Estt-I dated 4.8.1992 informing the Government that since the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court enjoyed the facilities and amenities in all aspects as provided to the Hon'ble Ministers of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the drivers attached to the Hon'ble Judges are treated on par with the drivers attached to the Hon'ble Ministers and, therefore, they should also be provided with the same facilities as provided to the drivers attached to the Hon'ble Ministers of the Government of Tamil Nadu. In this letter, the Registrar further stated, ?I am further directed to state that the drivers attached to the Hon'ble Judges are expected to attend to the work then and there and at short notice. Like the drivers attached to the Hon'ble Ministers, the drivers attached to the Hon'ble Judges also attend to office or residence of the Hon'ble Judges and return to their residences and also go to the workshops or their residences after leaving the vehicles in office or in the workshop for repairs, etc. They have no fixed hours of duty. They have to rema in at work at late night also. They also report for duty at the residence of the Hon'ble Judges even on holidays including public holidays for which they do not claim compensatory casual leave or honorarium or overtime allowance. Their work is onerous. In view of the above, I am directed to slate that the G.O. referred to in para 2 of the letter fifth cited above which is applicable to the drivers attached to the Heads of Dept. is not applicable to the drivers attached to the Hon'ble Judges and the G.O. applicable to them is only G.O.Ms. No. 2642 Public (Motor Vehicles) Dept. dt. 28.12.1979 which enables the drivers attached to the Hon'ble Ministers to obtain particular persons bus duty passes valid for all city routes and therefore the High Court fin ds every justification for sanction of bus passes valid for all city routes to all the drivers attached to the Hon'ble Judges.? This time, the Secretary to the Government, Home (Courts) Department responded to the letter of the Court stating as follows in his communication dated 28.8.1992: ?I am directed to state that in G.O.Ms. No. 1015 Finance (Pay Cell) dt. 27.10.1986 orders have been issued by the Govt. for providing two way bus pass for the journey from residence to the place where the vehicle is parked and back to the drivers attached to the Heads of Departments in Madras City. I may add that the Government examined the proposal of the High Court, sent with the letters cited and they agree that the drivers of cars attached to the High Court be issued the two way bus pass for the journey from their residence to the place where the vehicle is parked and back.? The expenditure on this account should be met from the contingencies of the High Court.? ?PETITIONERS have challenged the said order in Letter No. 2(d)/No. 138 dated 28.8.1992 of the State Government and by the instant petition, sought for a writ of certiorari, calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent dated 28.8.1992 in Lr. No. 2(D)/No. 138 Home (Courts V) Department and to quash the said proceedings, and consequently to issue mandamus directing the first respondent to forthwith issue instructions to respondents 3 and 4 to issue to the petitioners, partic ular person all route city bus pass and treat the petitioners on par with drivers attached to the Hon'ble Ministers in respect of various facilities and concessions, to enable them to discharge their functions without any let or hindrance, and to give compensation to them at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from January 1989 till the issue of all route city bus passes to them.

(3.) THERE is no return on behalf of the third respondent. The fourth respondent has come forward with a statement that it is a company wholly owned by the State Government and that passes are issued to the drivers attached to Public (Motor Vehicles) Dept., State Guest House Information Department, etc. after charging Rs. 250/- per pass well in advance from the concerned Department, and that passes are issued to freedom fighters, school children upto VIII Standard, disabled persons, etc., the cost of which is reimbursed by the Government to it.