MOTI LAL BHAGWAN DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this case is if I may say so domestic as the contestants are all members of the staff of this High Court.

(2.) PRIOR to the 1st November 1956 there were in existence two States being the previous State of Punjab and the State of Pepsu. There was a High Court in Pepsu. By the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the two States were merged to form the present state of Punjab and the Pepsu High Court an were absorbed here. A question arose at the time as to how the integration of the tow staffs was to be effected, The Punjab State had framed certain integration rules and the Chief justice of the Punjab High Court adopted most of those rules with certain modification and ordered integration to be made accordingly. A joint list was then prepared indicating the inter e seniority of the members of the joint staff. Speaking generally it appears that the officials who has come from the Pepsu High court were not fully satisfied and a large number of representations were made to the Chief Justice. Those were considered and decided. Representations however continued to be made and the staff of the previous Pepsu High Court desired that their representations under Ss. 115 and 117 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. This request was at first declined but subsequently in November, 1962, the chief Justice of this Court obtained the opinion of three Judges on the administrative side in order to ascertain whether the Central Government has no jurisdiction but of course nothing was decided judicially. The Chief Justice considered this matter and he finally decided that the representations made by the previous Pepsu employees might be set to Government without any comment or commitment. Those representations therefore went to the Central Government and the Central Government took a view which disturbed the previous decision made by the Chief Justice. Those view-of the Central Government were communicated to the Chief Justice through the Punjab State and the Chief Justice made a direction that a view seniority list of the entries staff should be prepared conforming to the decision of the Central Government. It is against that decision that the present writ petition under art. 226 of the Constitution has been brought on behalf of 77 members of staff of the High Court as it was before the merger and who can conveniently be called 'punjab employees' as against a set of respondent who were previously employed in the Pepsu High Court and can conveniently be called 'pepsu employees'. When the petition was filed the only respondent were the Union of India the State of Punjab and the Chief Justice of this Court along with the Registrar but later on at the instance of the 'pepsu employees' they were quite properly joined in the writ petition and now figure as the 5th respondent.

(3.) THE writ petition says in substance that the only constitutional authority competence to make any decision concerning the staff of this High Court is the chief Justice and no outside authority has any legal power to interfere with his decision and the decision of the Central Government therefore touching the servants of the High Court, is entirely illegal and cannot be given effect to. I have said that that is the substance of the petition because in its form some difficulty has arisen to which I will presently refer. The claim made in the prayer clause is that a writ should issue to the Chief Justice and to the Registrar of this Court not to give effect to the directions of the Central Government issued under S. 117 of the States Reorganisation Act and that the decisions previously made by the Chief justice should be enforced. There are then certain ancillary prayers which are not material.