HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Shri N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondents and Shri A. Bimol, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the High Court of Manipur.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the letter dated 14.07.2017 as not sustainable in the eyes of law and also to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the State respondents to extend the benefits of Principal Seat Pay to the employees of the High Court of Manipur along with its arrears within a stipulated period of time.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said letter, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners' association on the inter-alia grounds that as on date, there is no separate service rules for the employees of this Court and that the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 governs the service conditions of the employees of this Court as the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court vide its notification dated 02.08.1985 has notified that the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 shall be mutatis mutandis applicable to the outlying benches of the Gauhati High Court. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar (Finance), Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 07.06.2013 informed the Registrar of this Court conveying the approval of the Gauhati High Court for drawal of DA/DR at the enhanced rate as prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2013 which was allowed to be enjoyed by the members of the petitioners association by the Government of Manipur. Section 28 E of the Amendment, Act, 2012 provides for the continuation of the existing rules of the Gauhati High Court to the employees of this Court and without considering the provisions and other relevant laws, the proposal made by the Registrar General of this Court was rejected by the Government of Manipur. Since the members of the petitioners' association are similarly situated with that of the employees working at Gauhati High Court, the benefits enjoyed by the employees of the Gauhati High Court should be extended to the employees of this Court by invoking the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since the Government of Manipur has approved that the employees of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench will be governed by the Gauhati High Court Rues, 1967, they cannot be permitted to say that the benefits of the Principal Seat Pay would be confined only to the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Bench. Such action of the respondents is barred by the principles of estoppels and doctrine of election as their action amounts to blowing hot and cold in the same breath which is not permissible in law. 5. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 wherein it has been stated that the Government of Manipur has taken conscious decision not to extend the benefits of Principal Seat Pay to the employees of this Court as the Government of Manipur did not have sufficient resources or funds to meet the arrears which could be about Rs.2.43 crore. The decision of the Finance Department to the effect that since this Court came into existence only in the year 2013, the Principal Seat Pay would not be applicable to the employees of this Court prior to 2013. Merely because the employees of this Court are getting less pay and allowances than that of the employees of the Gauhati High Court, it cannot be a ground for grant of Principal Seat Pay. The stand of the Department of Finance as indicated in its separate affidavit is that the Principal Seat Pay was granted to the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court (Principal Seat), Guwahati after lot of deliberations and rounds of discussions and negotiations between the Gauhati High Court and the Government of Assam. The scale of pay enjoyed by the employees of this Court at par with the employees of the Gauhati High Court at present is a temporary arrangement due to non-finalisation of the rules since 23.03.2013. After the establishment of this Court, its employees' claim for grant of equal pay scale with that of the employees of the Gauhati High Court is quite unreasonable. Shri T.Z. Haokip cannot be compared with the employees of this Court, as he had served in the Gauhati High Court prior to his transfer to this Court. The volume of work that is shouldered by the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Bench is understood to be more than that of its outlying benches like Kohima, Itanagar, Aizawl. This establishes the rational for such benefits being granted to the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court and in such conditions, it cannot be compared with that of the employees of this Court. With respect to the proposal for grant of Principal Seat Pay to the employees of this Court, a committee was constituted and after an in-depth examination and consideration of the proposal, the Finance Department observed that the adoption of pay structures of Gauhati High Court would not be appropriate and advisable. 6. The short question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the employees of this Court who were the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, will be entitled to Principal Seat Pay which is being paid to the officers and staff of the Gauhati High Court, in view of the fact that the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 are still being applied to them. 7. It has been submitted by Shri H.S. Paonam, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner association that since no rules have so far been made by the Hon?ble Chief Justice, the employees of this Court are governed by the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 and will continue to be governed by them in terms of the provisions of Section 28 E of the Amendment Act, 2012. Unless and until the relevant rules are made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the employees of this Court will be entitled to pay and allowances and in particular, the Principal Seat Pay, being enjoyed by the employees of the Gauhati High Court. While issuing the letter dated 14.07.2017 Impugned herein, the Government of Manipur has failed to appreciate that while the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima bench and Tripura bench were enjoying the pay and allowances as prescribed by their respective States, the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal bench and Shillong bench were allowed to enjoy the pay and allowances as prescribed by the Assam Government for the employees of the Principal Bench. In other words, the employees of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Bench, Imphal Bench and Shillong Bench were treated equally and that is the reason why the Government of Meghalaya issued the Notification dated 5.3.2018 extending the benefits of Principal Seat Pay to the employees of the Meghalaya High Court. Shri T.Z Haokip who had been transferred to this Court in the year, 2012 from the Principal Bench, Guwahati, was/is being allowed to enjoy the Principal Seat pay and the denial of the same to the other employees of this Court is unreasonable and arbitrary. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Gurumoorthy Vs. Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland and Ors. (1971) 2 SCC 137; State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Vs. T. Gopalkrishnan Murthi and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 883; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1989) 4 SCC 187; State of Maharashtra Vs. Association of Court Stenos, PA, PS and Anr., (2002) 2 SCC 141 and State of West Bengal Vs. Subhash Kumar Chatterjee and Ors, (2010) 11 SCC 694.