MOHAN LAL HAKIM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PERSONAL Assistants -cum -stenographers of the High Court Judges who are petitioners in this petition, have prayed for the issuance of appropriate direction to the respondents to grant and accord them pay -scale of Rs. 1900 -3200 with designation of Private Secretary with effect from 26 -8 -1977 with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay, increments etc. The petitioners have claimed that they are discharging their duties and preferring their functions quite commendably, appreciably & excellently having unblemished, clean and creditable record of Service. It is submitted that prior to 1976 a complete similarity, party and identity existed between PAS -cum -stenos working in the civil secretariat attached with the Ministers and those working in the High Court attached with the Judges and the method end criteria for recruitment was and is the same for both. The working conditions, functions and duties of both are claimed to be identical and equal in nature, character and method. In the year 1976 the posts of PAs in the civil secretariat attached with the Ministers were re -designated/substituted as private secretaries but the same analogy was not applied to the posts of PAs attached wish the High Court Judges resulting in great anomaly and disparity besides alleged discrimination and prejudice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that there are no further avenues of promotion provided for the petitioners who are recruited as PAS and have to retire as such. Comparing with their counter -parts working in the civil secretariat attached with the Ministers, PAs attached with the Judges of the High Court are equally placed and form a class with the PAs of the civil secretariat. It is further contended that the designation of the PAs working in various High Courts in the country has since been changed, re -designated and altered to be a private secretary which has cot been done in the case of the J&K High Court. The PA attached with the Chief Secretary has been re -designated and re -defined as private secretary with enhancement of special pay of Rs.200 per month. The PAs working in the civil secretariat enjoy the benefit of having share of 40 per cent promotion to the next higher grade of Rs.1900 -3200 as Under Secretary to the Govt. Feeling aggrieved of the ill treatment meted out to the petitioners, they made representations before the High Court. The High Court took up the matter with the Law Department of the State and sent communications to all High Courts in the country; for ascertaining the true position as to whether the posts of private; secretary to the Honble Judges existed in the respective High Courts, In response to the communication sent to various High Courts, replies received clearly specified that the posts of private secretaries to the Honble Judges of the High Courts of Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, Bombay, Gujrat, Karnataka, Gauhati, Orissa, Madras, Allahabad Calcutta and Delhi, existed.

(2.) THE matter was again taken up with the Government by the High Court impressing upon it that the posts of private secretaries for the Honble Judges be created by up gradation of the posts of PAs working with the Honble Judges. The up gradation proposed by the High Court was in the then pay scale of Rs. 190C -32CO. It is contended that as under the General Clauses Act, Ministers and Judges of the High Court have been treated at par; their staff cannot be treated indifferently. The Petitioners have alleged that the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated by making discrimination without any guidelines The PAs attached to the Ministers/Secretaries and those attached with the Judges of the High Court were performing same nature of duties and were therefore, entitled to the same emoluments. Despite recommendation by the High Court, the state has not taken any step for the redressal of the grievance of the petitioners forcing them to file the present petition. The State Is alleged to have acted in a most callous, arbitrary, capricious and partisan manner while granting higher status a d grades to all the PAs attached with the Ministers in the civil secretariat by treating the petitioners indifferently rendering them as ineligible though they are fully qualified, experienced and discharging the same type of duties.

(3.) IN the objections filed on behalf of the High Court, it has been submitted that the petitioners have been pressing hard for a long time for up gradation their posts and their re -designation as private secretaries. Before making a reference to the Law Department, information was collected regarding the pay scales and status of the PAs working with the Judges of different High Courts in the country. It was further inquired as to whether the posts of private secretaries were existing in other courts or not. On the basis of information received from the High Courts of Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, Gujrat, Bombay, Orrissa, Allahbad, Gauhati and Delhi, it was found that private secretaries are to be appointed from among the stenographers/judgment -writers only. In some High Courts there were two scales of pay, one in selection grade and the other in the ordinary scales and both the said scales were higher than the stenographyâ„¢s scales. It was further reviled that it is not only the case of re -designation of the post of PAs -cum -stenographer simlicitor. The High Court made a recommendation that the posts of PA cum -stenos to the Judges of this Court be designated as private secretaries in the then pay -scale of Rs. 1900 -3200 which was latter on revised to Rs. 2125 -3600 with a special pay of Rs. 150 per month. It was further impressed that under the General Clauses Act, the status of the High Court Judge was equivalent to that of a Minister in the State. The Finance Department of the State, However, wanted some clarification, which was appropriately replied. Again some quarries were raised with respect to the nature of duties, which the private secretaries of the High Court Judges were performing in different High Courts, which were again appropriately replied. The High Court vide letter dated 16 -5 -1991 addressed to the Secretary to Govt., Law Department emphasized that a detailed proposal had already been sent and the quarries raised by the Finance Deptt. Were uncalled for. In spite of best efforts made by the High Court, the petitioners have not been granted the relief, which has been acknowledged to be genuine and reasonable. The averments of facts made in the petition have been admitted while replying each of the paras.