Nath Ghosh & Ors Vs. Baidyanath Mukherjee & Ors  Insc 279 (26 April 2005)
& B.N.Srikrishna Srikrishna, J.
appeal by special leave impugns the judgment of the Special Bench of five
Judges of the High Court of Calcutta, which allowed two Letters Patent Appeals
Nos. APO 601/87 and APO 604/87 and dismissed Appeal No. 187/88 and Writ
Petition No. 5497/87. Appeals, APO 601/87 and APO 604/87 arose out of the judgment of a learned Single
Judge (Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.) in Writ Petition No. 1033/84. Appeal No. 187/88
and Writ Petition No. 5497/87 that raised similar issues were also referred to
the Full Bench. The Full Bench by a common judgment decided all the matters
assigned to it.
the Chartered High Courts, which exercise Original Jurisdiction, there has been
traditional rivalry between the officers working on the Appellate Side and
those working on the Original Side. The case on hand is yet another example of
this rivalry resulting in expenditure of judicial time and talent which could
have been utilised for better purposes.
appellants before us are officers on the Original Side of the Calcutta High
Court designated as Recording Officers (Court). They were traditionally and
historically treated as equal in status with Assistant Registrar (Court) on the
Appellate Side. Before the First Pay Commission's recommendations, the pay
scales applicable to these two categories were the same. Prior to 1961 the pay
scale was Rs. 250-400; after 1961 pay revision the pay scale applicable to both
the categories was Rs. 500-700 and on and after 24.10.1968 both the categories
of officers were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 300-900. The First Pay
Commission recommended that the same emoluments be paid to these two categories
Recording officers on the Original Side were earlier styled as 'Shorthand
Writers'. The High Court on the Original Side maintained that the post of
Shorthand Writer on the Original Side was comparable to that of Court Officer
on the Appellate Side. Successive Chief Justices reiterated this position and
recommended to the State Government that parity be maintained in the emoluments
payable to these two categories. The Shorthand Writers on the Original Side of
the High Court represented to the Hon'ble Chief Justice by a petition dated
30.5.1972 that their designation be changed from "Shorthand Writer"
to "Court Reporting Officer". By an Order of 27.7.1972 the
designation of Bench Clerks / Court Officers of the Appellate Side were changed
to Assistant Registrars (Appellate Side).
thereafter, on 10.8.1972, the Shorthand Writers petitioned the Chief Justice
and requested that they be equated with Assistant Registrars on the Original
6.12.1972, the Chief Justice constituted a Special Committee of five learned
Judges to consider the following:
The representation of the Assistant Registrars (Court) on the Appellate Side
for revision of their scale of pay;
The representation of the Assistant Court Officers on the Appellate Side for
revision of their scale of pay and their designation;
The representation of the Shorthand Writers and Interpreters on the Original
Side for changing their designations."
Special Committee considered the matter and by its Report dated 26.4.1973 made
the following recommendations:
The Assistant Registrars (Court), Appellate Side be given the same salary,
scale of pay, emoluments and status as those of the Assistant Registrars,
The claim of the Assistant Court Officers to be designated as Court Officers be
not accepted but their scale of pay of Rs.600-860/- be recommended to the
Government for acceptance.
The designation of the Shorthand Writers on the Original Side be changed to
"Court Recording Officers".
The designation of the Interpreters on the Original Side be changed to
"Court Interpreting Officers".
of the Special Committee were considered in a Full Court Meeting held on
22.8.1973 and the Full Court of the High Court passed the following relevant
To consider the matter relating to the report of the Special Committee in
representation of the Assistant Registrars (Court), Assistant Court Officer,
Shorthand Writers and Interpreters for revision of scale of pay and change of
designation which was adjourned at the Full Bench Meeting held on 22.6.73 for
that the report of the Special Committee be accepted subject to the following
that the Assistant Registrar (Court), Appellate Side be given the same salary,
scale of pay, emoluments and status as those to the Assistant Registrar,
Original Side in suppression of the previous recommendations sent to the
Government more particularly in the letters of the Original Side one dated the
6th January, 1971 and the other dated the 23rd March, 1971 relating to the pay
of the Shorthand Writers and Interpreters;
the scale of pay of Rs. 425-825/- be recommended to the Government for the
Assistant Court Officers for acceptance;
the designation of the Shorthand Writers on the Original Side be changed to
"Recording Officer (Court)"; and
the designation of the Interpreters on the Original Side be changed to
"Interpreting Officer (Court)."
further that the Recording Officer (Court) and Interpreting Officer (Court) be
not treated on par with the Assistant Registrars (Court) on the Appellate Side
and they be not equated with the Assistant Registrars on the Original Side and
Assistant Registrars (Court) on the Appellate Side or the Assistant Court
Officers on the Appellate Side in matters of salary, scales of pay, emoluments
and funds." In 1977 the State Government constituted the Second Pay
Commission for revision of the pay scales applicable to Government servants. By
a Communication dated 23.3.1978, on behalf of the Chief Justice of Calcutta
High Court, the Registrar communicated to the State Government:
I am directed to say that the court has no objection to the said Pay
Commission considering the making its recommendations on the pay structures of
all categories of High Court employees, even though no representation is made
by the employees, individually or collectively, and kindly note that the
findings of the Pay Commission in this regard which may be forwarded by the
Government to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for his Lordship's consideration,
would not, by themselves, be binding on the Court." Sometime in 1981, the
Pay Commission made its recommendations with regard to a common scale of pay
and special pay to the Recording Officers (Court) on the Original Side and the
Assistant Registrars (Court) on the Appellate Side. A copy of the
recommendations was forwarded to the High Court for its views.
communication dated 22.12.1981 addressed by the Registrar of the High Court to
the State Government it was pointed out that the proposed pay scales had upset
the position of the Assistant Registrars (Court) as decided by the Full Court. It was pointed out that, according
to the Full Court decision dated 22.8.1973, the
Assistant Registrars (Court) were superior to those of the Recording Officers
(Court), who were the erstwhile Shorthand Writers on the Original Side. An
apprehension was expressed that the considered view of the Full Court of the
High Court had not been taken into account by the Government, and by
prescribing the same pay scale for the Assistant Registrars (Court) and the
Recording Officer (Court), "the rank and status of the Assistant Registrar
(Court) have been lowered and hence they feel seriously prejudiced." The
High Court, therefore, requested the State Government to consider the
recommendations made by it in this regard and prescribe appropriate pay scale
and the special pay for these categories of officers. Certain recommendations
were made with regard to the pay scales of these two categories of officers by
the said letter.
result of discussions and consultations between the High Court and the State
Government, a set of Rules prescribing the pay scales for different categories
of High Court employees were brought into force by the Chief Justice and
notified in the Official Gazette of 13.4.1982. These Rules were styled as
"Calcutta High Court (Appellate Side) Services (Revision of Pay and
Allowance) Rules, 1981, Part I". The Rules were brought into force
retrospectively with effect from 1.4.1981.The revised pay scale of Assistant
Registrar and Special Officer notified in Schedule B was Rs. 660-1600 plus
special pay of Rs. 100 per month. By another set of Rules styled as
"Calcutta High Court Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1981,
(Original Side), Part I", notified in the Official Gazette of 30.4.1982,
and made operative retrospectively from 1.4.1981, the pay scales of the
Original Side employees were revised. The revised pay scale applicable to the
Recording Officer (Court) on the Original Side was Rs. 660-1600 plus special
pay of Rs. 100 per month.
the Notification of the Rules and prescription of identical pay scale to the
two categories of the High Court employees, it appears that the High Court was
of the view that certain amount of differentiation was to be maintained and
this view was communicated to the State Government by D.O. letter dated
13/16.6.1983 forwarding certain proposals for further revision of the pay
scales of certain categories of employees of the High Court on Appellate Side.
By its letter dated 19.9.1983, the State Government agreed that in respect of
the post of Assistant Registrar (Court) the pay scale should be Rs. 660-1600
plus a special pay of Rs. 150/- per month. Certain other proposals made were
not accepted by the State Government.
Recording Officers moved Writ Petition No. 1033/84 before the High Court
praying that the State Government and the High Court be restrained from giving
effect to the Government's proposals contained in its letter dated 19.9.1983
and granting an additional special pay of Rs. 50/- per month to the Assistant
Registrars (Court) on the Appellate Side, or in the alternative, that they also
be given the additional special pay of Rs. 50/- per month. This writ petition
was allowed by a learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 14.8.1987. The
learned Single Judge directed, "the Senior Recording Officer (Court) and
all the Recording Officers (Court) on the Original Side of this Court shall be
entitled to the same special pay as admissible to the Assistant Registrars
(Court) on the Appellate Side of this Court including the benefits in terms of
order No. 24382-J/JIE-56/81(Pt. II) dated 19.9.1983 with effect from 1.4.1981."
Appeal Nos. 601/87 and 604/87 were filed on the Original Side challenging the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. As already said, these appeals together
with two connected matters were referred to the Special Bench which set aside
the judgment of the learned Single Judge and passed consequential orders.
have been taken through the record by the learned counsel for the appellants.
We have also heard the learned counsel on both sides. The crux of the issue is
that by the writ petition, the Recording Officers (Court) challenged
correctness of the Full
the letter of the High Court dated 22.12.1981; and
State Government's Order dated 19.9.1983.
efficacy of the challenge to these three shall determine the fate of this
counsel for the State Government took a neutral attitude and submitted that the
State Government had acceded to what it thought was a reasonable and justified
recommendation, and that the State would abide by whatever decision of this
Court takes in the matter.
in the writ petition before the High Court, the petitioners did seek an
injunction to restrain the High Court and the State Government from giving the
benefit of additional special pay to the appellants before us, such a prayer
does not appear to have been pursued before the learned Single Judge, as seen
from the written submissions filed and the judgment itself.
written submissions restricted the relief sought to upgradation of the special
pay of Assistant Registrars (Court). The judgment of the learned Single Judge
also does not indicate that the relief for an injunction was either pressed or
sought. On the other hand, the only relief which appears to have been pressed
for, and granted by the learned Single Judge, was the relief of additional
fifty rupees to the writ petitioners before him.
of the view that the challenge to the Full Court Resolution dated 22.8.1973
must fail for more than one reason. The learned counsel contended that the Full
Court Resolution had gone much beyond the recommendations made by the Special
Committee on 26.4.1973. The contention has no merit. The Special Committee was
constituted to investigate the matters and express its views. Merely because
the Special Committee expressed its views, the Full Court of the High Court was
not obliged to accept its recommendations as made. It was perfectly within the
competence of the Full Court of the High Court to reject, accept or accept with
modification the recommendations made by the Special Committee.
Resolution of the Full Court dated 22.8.1973 specifically goes on record to say
that the Recording Officers (Court) and Interpreting Officers (Court) shall not
be treated on par with the Assistant Registrars (Court) on the Appellate Side
and they be not equated with the Assistant Registrars (Court) on the Original
Side and Assistant Registrars (Court) on the Appellate Side or the Assistant
Court Officers on the Appellate Side in matters of salary, scales of pay,
emoluments and funds. This was a decision arrived at by the High Court on the
basis of its intimate knowledge of the job contents of these officers. Merely
because designations are changed, the responsibility invested in the incumbent
or the calibre of the incumbent to discharge certain duties does not change. We
have not been able to appreciate any substantial ground on which the concerned
Resolution of the Full Court of the High Court could be impugned. In the face
of this Full Court's Resolution, it is not open to the
appellants to contend that the concerned two categories of the employees of the
High Court must necessarily be treated as identical for all purposes including
the question of special pay.
the Full Court Resolution was passed in the year 1973. It is not as if the
employees concerned were not aware of the Full Court's Resolution or that they did not know the benefits or disadvantages
flowing therefrom. In fact, the change of designation of Shorthand Writers on
the Original Side to "Recording Officers (Court)" and the change of
designation of Interpreters to "Interpreting Officers (Court) came about
only because of this Full Court Resolution. A challenge to this Resolution of
1973 in the year 1984 should fail on that very ground.
the Rules prescribing the pay scale of the officers on the Original Side and
the Appellate Side have themselves not been challenged.
only contention urged in this connection is that, despite the Rules having been
framed in which the two concerned categories were granted identical pay scale
and special pay, it was not open to the High Court or the State Government to
increase the special pay of the Assistant Registrars (Court), by an additional
amount of Rs. 50/- per month. We are unable to accept the argument that because
the Rules prescribed the identical pay scale and special pay to these two
concerned categories of employees, it was not open to the High Court to
recommend to the State Government or for the State Government to accept payment
of an additional fifty rupees special pay only in respect of the employees
known as Assistant Registrars (Court) on the Appellate Side.
view, it is entirely a matter of the assessment by the High Court as to the
equivalence of the work done in the two categories. In a matter like this, the
assessment of the quality of work done by the two categories of employees must
necessarily be left to the judgment of the employer, which in the present case
is the High Court.
challenge to the Resolution of the Full Court of the High Court and to the
Government's Order dated 19.9.1983 also has no merit. The Special Bench
judgment under appeal has carefully considered the contentions and pointed out
that it is not within the province of the High Court to fix the pay scales of
various employees in exercise its powers of judicial review under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. Whatever may have been the grievance, it was not
open to the learned Single Judge to direct fixation of pay scales or special
pay. The reliance by the Special Bench on the judgment of this Court in State
of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia is apt. This
Court observed therein as under:
first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section
Officers should not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon
several factors. It does not depend upon either the nature of work or volume of
work done by Bench Secretaries.
it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective
posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar,
but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work
may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by
relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties.
question of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government.
It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the
best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If
there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should
normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalent
unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration." We
agree with the conclusion of the Special Bench that the court cannot, in the
guise of judicial review, usurp the powers conferred by Article 229 of the
Constitution and fix a pay scale different from one prescribed in exercise of
the said power.
the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the effort of the
appellants before the Court is not to reduce the higher special pay paid to the
Assistant Registrars (Court) on the Appellate Side, but to bring about a parity
by increase of the special pay admissible to the respondents. In our view, this
contention is also unjustified. While we do not think that the higher special
pay made admissible to the respondents- employees is unjustified, even if it
were so, the appellants cannot succeed in seeking something, which, even
according to them, is unjustified.
at from all points of view, it appears to us that the judgment of the Special
Bench cannot be faulted. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment under
appeal, nor any merit in this appeal.
the appeal is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.