SUSHIL THAKUR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioners are working as Steno -Typists in the various subordinate courts situated in the State of H.P. The post of Steno -typist is in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer. The post of Junior Scale Stenographer is in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. The only channel for promotion thereafter is to the post of Personal Assistant to the learned District and Sessions Judge. The Steno -typists working in various subordinate courts in the State of Himachal Pradesh filed a writ petition bearing No. 286/1999 seeking the following reliefs : -

(2.) THIS Court disposed of the writ petition No. 286 of 1999 on 23.2.2004. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus : After having considered the respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties and also having perused the record produced by respondent No. 2 and also particularly keeping in view the fact that certain more Courts were admittedly created in the year 1999 and some are likely to be created, in course of time, so far prayer made for creation of regular posts in the relevant pay scale in accordance with the rules on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, it cannot be considered favourably at this stage. It is, however, clarified that so far as 27 posts of JWs created in terms of the above extracted communication from respondent No. 1 are concerned and for that matter those may be created in future on contract basis, respondent No. 1 is directed to continue all such posts indefinitely and not on yearly basis. It is further directed that in course of time these posts will be created in accordance with the recruitment rules as may be applicable from time to time. It is, however, clarified that so far as eligible persons who are already working in all the Courts in the State of H.P. are concerned. First they shall be considered for being promoted against the regularly created posts of Judgment Writers in accordance with the Rules and their right will no, in any manner, be affected by the appointments made on contract basis. So far the creation of 50 more posts JWs in terms of the communication dated 23.12.2003 supra from the High Court to respondent no. 1 is concerned, the latter is directed and mandated to examine the matter forthwith. In case any other or further information is required from the Registry of this High Court, Mr. Sharma submitted that needful will be done as and it is sought for. While examining this communication, a decision will be taken for the creation of these posts too by or before 30.4.2004. It hardly needs to be reiterated that so far as requirement of Judiciary is concerned, the opinion of the High Court has to have primacy. In case of any difference as to how the matter is to be resolved is no more res integra. (See Union of India and another v. S.B. Vohra and others, JT 2004(1) 38, State of H.P. v. Sh. P.D. Attri, 1999(3) SCC 217; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India and another, JT 1989(3) SC 188. In addition to these decisions, respondent No. 1, while examining the matter, will also keep in view the decision of the Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 4586 of 1995 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3341 of 1995), State of H.P. and another v. H.P. Non -Gazetted Judicial Employees Welfare Association and another. Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, reserving liberty to the parties to seek further directions, if necessary from the Court. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No costs. -

(3.) IT is averred in the petition that the persons, who have been appointed as Judgment Writers on contract basis are drawing more salary than the Steno -typists. Further case of the petitioners is that as per the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 286/1999, 77 posts of Judgment Writers already created on contract basis, should be made permanent and the petitioners should be considered against the same. They have further contended that the rights of the petitioners should not be adversely affected as per the observations made by this Court in the judgment in CWP No. 286/1999 while filling up the posts of the Judgment Writers and they should be given preference. The principal stand of the respondent -State is that the creation of the posts is a policy matter and the financial health of the State has to be taken into consideration. It is further contended by the respondent -State in its reply that the averment made by the petitioners that their pay package is less than the Judgment Writers is factually incorrect. The case set out by respondent No. 2 is that the petitioners have no cause of action for the time being and as and when the posts of Judgment Writers are regularly created, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules will be framed for filling up these posts and if the petitioners are found eligible, they shall be considered for appointment against these posts by way of promotion or otherwise alongwith eligible candidates.