SECTION OFFICER BROTHERHOOD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. This is a matter of pay fixation of the Section Officers holding the equivalent post of Administrative Officer (Judicial) under the serial No. 8 of the statement showing the pay scales of officers/officials of Delhi High Court being dated 14-12-2004. Supreme Court was pleased to pass an order on 27-9-2004 as follows : "we, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. However, this order shall be subject to the rules framed by the Chief Justice in the case of the Private Secretaries of the High Court. It will, however be open to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to frame appropriate rules as has been done in the case of the Private Secretaries or constitute an appropriate committee for the said purpose. We have no doubt in our mind that if such committee is constituted and any recommendation is made for enhancement of the scale of pay for the concerned officers by the Chief Justice, the same would be considered by the State Government in its proper perspective and in the light of the observations made hereinbefore expeditiously. For the reasons aforementioned, these appeals are allowed with the aforementioned observations. No costs. "

(2.) HOWEVER, on the basis of such order a Committee of four Judges was formed by the Chief Justice. Such Committee made a report. An important observation of the report is as follows : "the Court has framed separate service rules including rules of pay for the Private Secretaries of the Court. We do not find any justification in denying the same pay scales to the Section Officer of the Court. We also do not find justification to deny the same benefits of the pay scales to the Section Officers of this Court which are applicable to the Section Officers of the Delhi High Court who are carrying out same duties and responsibilities. "

(3.) THEREAFTER, nothing happened with regard to the recommendation made by the Committee and order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The recommendation is dated 28-10-2004 when the order of the Chief Justice is dated 3-8-2005. The petitioners contended that several representations have been made including the last representation dated 21-12-2006 but all are in vain. Therefore, we are of the view that the State Government cannot sit tight over the matter indefinitely without consideration particularly when the Chief Justice has passed an order on the basis of the recommendation of the Judges Committee and forwarded to the State for taking necessary steps. State cannot take the matter so lightly in such circumstances at all. The staff of the High Court is under the protective umbrella of the Chief Justice. Officers and servants of the Court in the strict sense, may be Government servants, but their position is entirely different and free from the control of the Government. Their service conditions are regulated by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice is the highest functionary on the judicial side of the State. He is the head and heart of the judicial system at the State level. Even thereafter if the State takes the matter so lightly it will tantamounts to potential threat to the independency of the judiciary which cannot be any welcoming situation.