Jaswant Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors.
1994 Latest Caselaw 87 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

(1) By this writ petition the petitioners who are Superintendents in the Office of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi claim the same scale of pay as is admissible to Superintendents in the High Court of Delhi. The facts leading to the present writ petition arc as under:-

(2) Prior to the year 1973 the Superintendents in the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge as well as Superintendents in the High Court were in the same scale of pay viz. Rs.350-575(pre-revised). How subsequently disparity occured between the pay scales of Superintendents working in the Office of District & Sessions Judge and the Superintendents working in the High Court has a small history about it. In 1970 this Court framed High Court Officers & Servants(Salaries, Leave, Allowances & Pension) Rules (for short Rules). Rule 2 of the Rules read with Schedule(Part Ii item 5) thereto prescribed a scale of Rs.350- 25-575 for the Superintendents working in the High Court. On the recommendations of the IIIrd Pay Commission the scale of Rs.350-25-575 was replaced by a scale of Rs.550-25-750 EB-30-900 with effect from January 1, 1973. This scale also applied to the Superintendents working in the office of the District & Sessions Judge. Rule 3 of the Rules also needs to be noticed which inter-alia, provides that the post of Superintendent in the High Court shall correspond to the post of Superintendent in the Delhi Administration in so far as its conditions of service pertaining to pension, leave and allowances are concerned. One Sangram Singh, a Superintendent of this Court, filed a writ petition, being C.W. 2812/81, in which he claimed parity of pay scale with the Private Secretaries and Readers of this Court. Following the judgment rendered in P.N. Chopra & another vs.Union of India and others (C.W.No. 329/80 decided on December 17,1980) 2nd (1981) 11 Delhi 102), whereby this Court issued a mandamus directing the respondents including Union of India and Delhi Administration to equate the posts of Private Secretaries & Readers of Judges of this Court with the post of Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary, writ petition filed by Sangram Singh was allowed on May 28, 1982. The effect of this judgment was that the Superintendents of this Court were allowed a pay scale of Rs.775-1200 with effect from January 1, 1973. Being aggrieved by the decision of this Court a Special Leave Petition was moved by the Union of India which was dismissed. While dismissing the same, the Supreme Court clarified that Superintendents will be entitled to the higher grade from August 14, 1977 instead of P53 January 1, 1973 as held by the High Court. On October 20, 1981 i.e. after the decision in Chopra's case and prior to the judgment of this Court in Sangram Singh's case Superintendents attached to the Office of District & Sessions Judge represented to this Court that their pay scales be revised from Rs.550-900 (now Rs.1640-2900) to Rs.775-1200 (now Rs.3000-4500), so that they could be brought at par with the Private Secretaries and Readers of this Court. The representation was moved through the District & Sessions Judge, who recommended that their case for upward revision of pay scale be taken up Along with the case of the Superintendents working in the High Court, which was under the consideration of the authorities. The representation of the Superintendents was ultimately transmitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. On April 30,1983, the Ministry of Home Affairs informed the Delhi Administration that IVth Pay Commission was being constituted and the claim of the Superintendents should be placed before it. But the Pay Commission unfortunately did not deal with the pay scale of the Superintendents working in the Office of District & Sessions Judge. This led to the filing of a fresh representation on June 10, 1987 by the present petitioners. In this representation it was, inter-alia, pointed out that by virtue of the recommendations of the IVth Pay Commission the posts of Senior Stenographer and Reader, which were the feeder posts for the post of Superintendent, had been placed in the scale ofRs.2000-3200 while the scale of pay for the post of Superintendent was not revised upward and remained in pay scale of Rs-1640-2900. It was contended that since the feeder post was upgraded, there was no justification for keeping the higher post in the scale of Rs-1640-2900 which should be in the scale of Rs.2000-3500. The case of the petitioners was again recommended by the District Judge and the same was forwarded to this Court. On July 10, 1989, this Court keeping in view the recommendation of the District Judge and having regard to all the relevant circumstances also recommended the case of the petitioners to Delhi Administration for revision of their pay scales. The Delhi Administration by its letter dated December 1, 1989 addressed to the Registrar, Delhi High Court sought inter-alia the following information as the same was required by the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice :- "THE duties & responsibilities of the post of Superintendents in the office of the District & Sessions Judge Along with the justification for such revision of the pay scale."

(3) Thereupon the High Court by its letter dated December 12, 1989 asked the District Judge to furnish the details of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Superintendent in his office. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court the District Judge by his letter dated March 12, 1990 furnished the requisite information based on detailed study of the duties and responsibility attached to the post of Superintendents which was forwarded to the Delhi Administration on March 17, 1990(Annexure P-11). The Delhi Administration on receipt of the information also recommended by its letter dated April 12, 1990 to the Government of India to revise the pay scales of Superintendents working in the office of the District Judge. Again on May 25, 1991 the Registrar of this Court while emphasizing the need to revise scale of pay of the Superintendents working in the office of District Judge gave reasons justifying the demand of the petitioners and also brought out dissimilarity of work performed by the Superintendents in the District Courts and Superintendents working in the Delhi Administration in the following manner:- ".........ITappears that the crux of the observations/ views of the Service Department of Delhi Administration, as contained in their letter dated 20.7.90 is that the upward revision of the pay scale of the post of Super- intendent in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, would have the repercussions in the form of similar demand being raised by about 900 Superintendents working in various departments of Delhi Administration, resulting in administrative problems and financial burden on Government Ex-chequer. However, this Court feels that this can hardly be taken as a cogent ground for rejecting the legitimate claim of the Superintendents of the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. As a matter of fact, it is not desirable to draw a parallel between the Superintendents of the District Court, and the Superintendents working in Delhi Administration in the matter of nature of duties and degree of responsibility attached to the two categories.

The nature of work of the Superintend in the District Courts is clearly distinguishable from that of a Superintendent working in the Delhi Administration on the following points:-

I)the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Superintendent in the District Court are Administrative-cum-quasi judicial in separate identity of theirown. Their duties and functions can only be compared with those of Superintendents in Delhi High Court, who are in the grade of Rs.2000-3500 (775-1200 pre-revised). ii) it is also not possible to compare the Administrative working of the District Courts/with that of any department of Delhi Administration. iii) whereas the Superintendent in Delhi Administration are having fairly good chances of promotion to various higher posts including the posts under Dhani Service, the Superintendents in the District Courts have hardly any chance of further promotion as the number of higher post in that office is almost negligible. iv) the denial of upward revision of the pay scale of Superintendent in District Courts would result in anomaly of the highest magnitude in as much as recently some of the posts of Stenographers/Readers attached to members of Delhi Higher Judicial Service have been upgraded from the scale of Rs.l640-2900 to Rs.2000-3200 by judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No.48/90 whereas the pay scale of the post of Superintendent continues to be Rs. 1640-2900. The post of Stenographer is one of the feeder posts to the post of Superintendent in District Courts and as such the position evidently become anamalous, the higher/promotional post being in a lower scale than the scale of feeder posts.

This position has already been made clear and discussed at length in the letter dated 12.3.90 of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi which has already been forwarded to the Delhi Administration, Delhi.

IN view of the position explained above, this Court reiterates the recommendations of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice based as they were on the reasoning given by the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi and thoroughly examined by this Court and requests that the pay scale of four post of Superintendents in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi revised from Rs.1640-2900 to Rs.2000-3500. The matter may kindly be reconsidered on priority basis."

(4) Despite the views of the High Court, the Government of India failed to revise the pay scale of the petitioners.

(5) Another development which is significant and will have an impact on the question involved in the writ petition is that in Hari lal Shurma vs. Union of India and another, being writ petition 2756/91, this Court held that the Superintendents working in the High Court were entitled to a grade of Rs.3000-4500with effect fromJanuaryl,19H6. This decision brought about parity between the pay scales of the Superintendents and the Private Secretaries to the Judges of this Court.

(6) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are performing the same functions as are being performed by the Superintendents working in the High Court. According to him, the nature of duties and responsibilities attached with the post of Superintendent in the District Court are also the same as that of the post of a Superintendent in this Court. He points out that the Registrar by his letters dated July 10, 1989 and May 25, 1991 addressed to the Secretary Law & Judicial, Delhi Administration,Delhi has clearly brought out that the claim of the petitioners for up ward revision of their pay scales was justified and parity should be brought about in the pay scales of the Superintendents working in the District Courts and the Superintendents and Court Masters of this Court.

(7) Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not applicable in the instant case as the petitioners are not performing the same functions as the Superintendents of this Court are discharging.

(8) I have considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that prior to 1973 the Superintendents attached to the Office of the District & Sessions Judge and Superintendents.in the High Court were in the same scale of pay. It is also not denied that after the report of IVth Pay Commission, posts of Stenographers and Readers which are feeder posts for the post of Superintendent, have been placed in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200, a scale higher than that of the petitioners as they are still in the grade of Rs.1640-2900. It is a clear anomaly which should have been corrected by the State. But, despite repeated representations of the petitioners, the mistake has not been rectified. It appears from the communication of the High Court dated July 10, 1989 to the Secretary, Law & Judicial, Delhi Administration, that the High Court after thoroughly examining the matter of revision of the pay scale of Superintendents attached in the Office of thr District & Sessions. Judge came to the conclusion that there was need for upward revision of their pay scales in order to remove the anomaly likely to arise with the revision of pay scales of Stenographers and Readers and also to bring them at par with their counterparts in the High Court. The learned District Judge also in his communication to the High Court dated March 12, 1990 clearly brought out the nature of the duties attached to the post of Superintendents. He has pointed out that the duties of the Superintendents working in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge are of onerous nature and bear great responsibility not in any way less than the duties and responsibilities attached with the posts of the Superintendents in the High Court. At this stage it will be advantageous to extract some of the observations of the District Judge:- "IN the hierarchy of the Administrative working in the District Courts the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the posts of Superintendent are of high sense and of onerous nature. It is in no way less than that of the duties of Superintendent of the High Court where the pay scale is on the higher range i.e. Rs.775-1200 (pro-revised). It is not possible to compare the administrative working of the District Court with that of any department of Delhi Administration Delhi. The Delhi Administration Subordinate Service Rules have been framed and the incumbents to the post of Superintendents are inter-departmentally changed because of similar type of duties attached to these posts. The post of Superintendent of District Court could not be integrated/ inducted with the Subordinate Services of Delhi Administration because the nature of duties and working in District Court is not similar nor inter-department transfer is at all feasible. Therefore, the District Court unit is having a separate identity being under the direct Administrative control of the Delhi High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. The Superintendents of this office are discharging not only Administrative type of work but also perform quasi-Judicial nature of duties. It is, thus, at par with those of the Superintendents in Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court vide its letter No. Estt.E.III/DHC dated 10.7.89 has already recommended to bring the pay scales at par with their counter parts in Delhi High Court. It is further stated that in order to remove the anomaly likely to arise with the revision of pay scales of Readers and Stenographers, it is administratively desirable that the post of Superintendents may be upgraded from the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to Rs.2,000-3500. It is all the more necessary that the holders of the posts of Stenographers and Readers may not prefer to be promoted on a post having higher responsibilities with gazette rank but having lesser pay scale In the time to come the post of Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 will automatically become superfluous or redundant and for want of proper and suitable incumbents the post may remain unfilled. In the absence of proper supervision the whole administrative set up may collapse in due course."

(9) Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the High Court it is admitted that by and large the duties & functions and degree of responsibility of the two posts are similar. Once the nature of duties & functions and degree of responsibility attached to the posts are similar, the principle of equal pay for equal work as implemented in the various decisions of the Supreme Court in Rundhir Smith vs. Union of lndia, , Bhagwan Dass vs. State of Haryana , P.Savita vs. Union of India 1985 Supplement (1) Scr 101, Dhirendra Chumoli vs. State of U.P., and Surender Singh vs.Fnginefr-in-Chiff, CI'WD and others must also apply in the present case. It is also material to point out that to start with the Superintendents attached with the Office of the District & Sessions Judge and Superintendents in the High Court were drawing the same scale of pay and it was merely an accident that the scales of pay became different not because there was any difference between the nature of duties and responsibilities attached with their respective posts but because of the decision of this Court in Sangram Singh and another vs. Union of India and others, C.W.2812/ 81 rendered on May 28, 1982 which resulted in the upward revision of grade of Superintendents working in the High Court. In Sangram Singh's case, Superintendents working in the Office of District Judge were not parties and this is how they were left out and became victims of the present disparity.

(10) The stand of the first respondent in the counter affidavit that the posts of Superintendents in the Office of District & Sessions Judge and the High Court are not of equal status and the nature & duties and functions and degree of responsibility of the two are not similar, are not based on any material whatsoever. It is merely a bald statement, which cannot be accepted especially in view of the categorical stand of the High Court which has the first hand knowledge of the duties and functions being discharged by its staff and those working in the subordinate Courts. In a matter like this, the executive should ordinarily accept the views of the High Court unless there are cogent reasons to differ from the same. Bcsides, in the present case evaluation of the duties and responsibilities of the said post was made by the District Judge pursuant to the direction of the High Court which was based on the request of the Ministry of Law and Justice, as reflected in the letter of Delhi Administration dated December 1,1989. The first respondent has not even addressed itself to the views of the High Court or the evaluation made by the District Judge or to the fact that in the District & Sessions Judge's office the posts of Stenographers and Readers carried a higher scale of pay than the posts of Superintendents even though the former serve as feeder posts for the latter. to revise the pay scale of the Superintendents attached to the office of the District & Sessions Judge is arbitrary and discriminatory.

(11) Though the equation of post is basically a function of the administration but where it fails to remove the anomalies in the pay scales of the employees it becomes necessary to intervene in order to do justice.

(12) Having regard to the above discussion, it is apparent that the scale of pay of the post of Superintendent in the Office of District Judge has to be revised. How much should be the upward revision, needs to be considered. To arrive at a conclusion it will be necessary to again refer to the case of Sangram Singh vs. Union of lndia(supra) wherein it was held that the Superintendents working in the High Court were entitled to the scale of Rs. 775- 1200(pre-revised) as they were performing the same duties and bearing the same responsibilities as the Private Secretaries and Readers of this Court. This is how the Superintendents in the High Court were allowed the scale of Rs.775-1200 (revised to Rs.2000-3500), leaving behind their counterparts in the Office of District Judge. The Union of India filed a Special Leave Petition against the decision of the High Court which came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on December 3, 1982 but the Superintendents were held entitled to scale of pay with effect from August 12, 1977 instead of July 1973 as granted by the High Court. In another decision a Division Bench of this Court in Hari Lal Sharma vs. Union of India, C. W. 72.56/91 decided on November 14, 1991 held that the Superintendents in the High Court were entitled to the scale of Rs.3000-4500 with effect from January 1, 1986. Since there is no distinction between the Superintendents working in the District Courts and the Superintendents working in the High Court in so far their nature of duties & responsibilities is concerned, I sec no reason why the two should be in different scales of pay.

 (13) The upshot of the above discussion is that Superintendents attached to the Office of District & Sessions Judge are entitled to the scale of pay as is available to the Superintendents in the High Court with effect from the dates the latter were put in the revised grades. On this basis the Superintendents in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge will be entitled to the following scales of pay:-    I)Rs.775-1200 from August 12, 1977 to December 31, 1985; and ii) Rs.3000-4500 from January 1, 1986 onwards.  

 (14) Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and mandamus is issued directing the first respondent to give to the petitioners the pay scales of Rs.775-1200 from August 12, 1977 to December 31, 1985 and Rs.3000-4500 from January 1, 1986 onwards. They will be entitled to all the consequential benefits arising due to the revision of the pay scales.