PUSHPENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN S. K. Ghosh V. State of Rajasthan (1) alone with 7 other similar writ petitions decided on 16. 11. 1984 by a learned Judge of this Court, the following directions inter alia, had been given to the State of Rajasthan and the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan - "a cadre of Private Secretaries of Chief Justice/judges of the High Court consisting of posts, equal in number to the posts of Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court, carrying Pay Scale, Allowances & Status at par with the Pay scale, Allowances & Status of Private Secretaries to Commissioner and Secretaries to Government shall be constitutes with effect from the commencement of financial year following the year of institution of these writ petitions (i. e. with effect from April 1, 1984 ). " Since these directions have not been carried out in full, the present writ petition has been filed by Shri Pushpendra Kumar, Private Secretary cum-Judgment Writer for directing the State Government and the High Court to comply with the aforesaid directions.

(2.) IT is now not in dispute before me that in compliance with the said judgment, the High Court has only issued some directions but not framed the Rules for governing the Service Conditions of the Private Secretaries working in the Rajasthan High Court including the provisions of post equivalent to the post of Deputy Secretary. However, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Private Secretaries to the Judges of the High Court have already been provided with the same Pay Scales and Allowances as are applicable to the Secretaries to the Commissioner and the Secretaries to the Government. His grievance, however, is that the Private Secretaries in High Court have not been given the same status as the Private Secretarises attached to the Commissioners and the Secretaries to the Government enjoin and he also urged that by the term Status", he does not only mean the status in the service but it must also include the same facilities and privilages, which are made available to the Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government e. g. separate room, separate telephone and the facilities of C1. IV servant.

(3.) THE other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was with regard to the channel of promotions of the private Secretaries to Judges equal to the channel of promotion to the Private Secretaries to Commissioners and the Secretaries to the State Government. Mr. Purohit has already stated that the Rules have already been amended in this respect and the Deputy Registrars of the High Court have been equated with the Deputy Secretaries of the State Government in State Secretariat Services. Mr. Singhvi, now, therefore, does not challenge this position but states that these amendments must be with effect from April 1, 1984 as has been directed by the learned Single Judge in S. K. Ghosh's case (supra ). Such a direction is there and, there fore, these amendments will have to be made retrospective with effect from April 1, 1984.