Bailiffs And Process Servers ... vs Delhi Administration, Delhi And ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 514 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of Bailiffs and Process Servers working in the subordinate courts.

2. Other petitioners are the members of the first petitioner. Their scale of pay is said to be lower than even Class IV employees of this Court. The existing scale of pay of Process Servers is Rs. 196-3-232 which was revised to the scale of pay of Rs. 750-940. The same scale of pay is also applicable to the post of Peon, Frashes, Sweepers, Majdoor, Helper, Chowkidar, Mali and unskilled workers etc., in terms of the Fourth Central Pay Commissioner Report. According to the petitioners, the minimum qualifications required for holding the posts of Process Servers are higher than the unskilled labourers to which class peons etc. belong to. The nature of duties of the Process Servers are entirely different from that of the peons etc.

3. The petitioners had been making representations for placing them on a suitable scale of pay which was recommended by the District Judge and the High Court but despite the same, no action is that regard has been taken by the administration. The petitioners herein have furnished statement pointing out pay scale of bailiffs, readers, Patwari and Head Constable etc. with a view to showing how there exists an anomaly and that they are required to discharge a higher burden and are also required to possess higher qualification. Their contention is that they had been discriminated against. The petitioners also rely upon a duty roster with a view to showing the number of places they are required to visit for the purpose of service of summons etc. It is stated that they are not allowed any transport allowance but are merely paid a paltry sum of Rs. 4/- per month by way of cycle allowance.

4. The petitioners made a representation before the Chief Justice of this Court on or about 3rd March 1975, 27th January 1978 and on various other dates. They have also placed on records a letter dated 22nd March 1978 issued by the Administrative Sub Judge to the District and Sessions Judge, which is in the following terms:

"Sub: Increase in the strength of Bailiffs/proposal for

Sir,

With reference to correspondence resting with this office letter No. 780/-ASJ dt. 7.2.78, on the subject "Eradication of Corruption amongst Bailiffs", I am to state that I have thoroughly gone through the matter and examined the same very carefully. I feel that due to increase in the litigation in Delhi, the strength of the Bailiffs in the Civil Nazarat has become inadequate. In order to assess the position I have also perused the information received from the out districts of the Punjab and Haryana States. The details, received from the said districts together with the information concerning to the Delhi Civil Nazarat have been shown in the enclosed schedules I and II, for kind perusal.

It is submitted for your kind information that the work of the bailiff is of an executive nature and is an arduous one. The incumbent to this post must be stout one is all respect. But it is notable that the persons working as Bailiffs though possess the prescribed qualifications but are not well qualified as must be. Secondly their grades are also very low. In my humble opinion, the educational qualification for the post of bailiff must be revised and minimum qualification may be prescribed for the post as Matriculation or equivalent and scale of the post may also be raised to bring the same at par with the scale of the post of ASI of the Police Department as the Bailiff has to discharge the duties which are identical to those of the ASI. Thirdly the strength of the bailiffs also needs to be increased because since the year 1961 though there has been considerable increase in the number of courts in Delhi and as the for load of the Civil Nazarat, but there has been no increase in the strength of the bailiffs at all as a result of comparison of the work load of the Civil nazarat with that of the Nazarats of the out districts, I am of the considered view that additional posts of the bailiff may be sanctioned so as to enable the undersigned to over-come the day to day problems of the Nazarat to eradicate the alleged corruption.

In view of my above submission, I request that the authorities concerned may kindly be requested to consider the above proposal favorably besides affording the facilities of Govt. conveyance and uniforms to the bailiffs. In case the "Govt. conveyance is not possible to be provided, the proposal for paying permanent conveyance allowance may be considered because the bailiffs are supposed to travel in the filed irrespective of any limit of distance."

In an affidavit filed on behalf of this court, it is stated:

"2. Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 3.4.98, the Registrar, Delhi High Court by his letter dated 4.4.98 was pleased to request the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi to supply the requisite information as sought by this Hon'ble Court.

Thereafter, by a further letter dated 18.4.98, as also telephonically, the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi was once again requested to supply the requisite information at the earliest.

True copies of the letters dated 4.4.98 and 18.4.98 are annexed hereto as Annexure R-3/1 (Colly) .

3. On 23.4.98, the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi was pleased to forward the information as per the available record to the High Court, as contained in the letter of the Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi, dated 22.4.98.

True copies of the letters dated 23.4.98 and 22.4.98 are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-3/2 (Colly) .

Some clarifications were sought from the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi and the same have been received by the letter dated 3.11.99, Annexure R-3/3 (Colly) .

4. The information received is as follows:-

(a) On 1.4.1934, the pay scale/salary of the Process Servers was Rs. 22/-. The salary/pay scale of the Bailiffs in the Small Causes Court was Rs. 25/-.

The information is as per records of the Punjab High Court Rule, Volume-I. However, the pay scale of the Bailiffs posted in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi and Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi are not available in these records.

(b) From the Punjab High Court Rules (Volume-IV) printed in 1966, it appears that the pay scales of Process Servers was Rs. 35-50 and that of Bailiffs was Rs. 45-60.

However the records do not reveal as to when these scales became effective.

(c) The First Pay Commission report shows the pay scales of the Bailiffs in the office of the Judge, Small Causes Court as Rs. 40-60.

The salary of the Bailiffs and European Bailiffs in the office of the District and Sessions Judge is shown as Rs. 80-220.

There is no mention of the post of Process Servers in the First Pay Commission Report.

(d) On 1.1.73, the pay scales of Process Servers was changed by a Central Government Notification, to Rs. 196-232.

The pay scale of Bailiffs was also changed to Rs. 210-270 by the said Notification.

It is also apparent from the said Notification the prior to 1.1.73, the pay scales of Process Servers was Rs. 70-85 and that of Bailiffs was Rs. 80-110. However, it is not known as to when the change in these pay scales were effected.

(e) By the 4th Pay Commission Report, the pay scales of Process Servers and Bailiffs were enhanced to Rs. 750-940 and Rs. 800-1150 respectively.

(f) The present pay scale of the Process Servers and Bailiffs, as per the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission Report, are Rs. 2550-3200 and Rs. 2650-4000 respectively."

5. It would further appear from the affidavit of one Shri Sevati Lal, General Secretary of the petitioner that the scales of pay were revised on the recommendations of the Pay Commission from time to time, which is in the following terms:

"Process Servers had not crept and it had been revised as per the recommendations of pay commission from time to time the said revision would have been as follows:-

Year Scale Ist Pay Commission 1947 80-220 IInd Pay Commission 1959 360-500 IIIrd Pay Commission 1973 400-600 IVth Pay Commission 1986 1350-2200 Vth Pay Commission 1996 4500-7000"

6. Despite the fact that an anomaly existed for a long time, no attempt had been made by the State to remove the same.

In this writ petition, even no return has been filed.

7. This court, therefore, will have to proceed on the basis that the allegations made in the writ petitions as also the statements made in the affidavits filed by the District Judge as also this court remain unrebutted.

8. Normally, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not resort to fixation of scale of pay which is the job of an expert body but in this case the apathy of the administration is tell tale. They have not fixed the pay scale of the petitioners herein despite several requests. It appears the respondents have, however, fixed the scale of pay of bailiffs who are to be appointed in the family courts.

9. It has not been and could not have been disputed that the job of the petitioners are more onerous than the bailiffs of a family court. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work must be held to be applicable. From a perusal of the notification dated 9th April 1992 issued in the Delhi Gazette, it appears that therein the scale of pay of process server has been fixed as 950-1500. There is absolutely no reason as to why, having regard to the principles adumbrated in Article 39(d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work would not apply in the case of the petitioners.

10. Mr. Shali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Delhi Administration, however, would submit that process servers in the family courts have not yet been appointed. This may be so but the very fact that in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Family Courts Act, the scale of the pay of the Process Servers had been fixed, we see no reason why the petitioners cannot be directed to be placed on he same scale of pay w.e.f. the date of the said notification i.e. 14th April 1992 consequent revision in the scale of pay in terms of the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission.

We direct accordingly. This writ petition is thus disposed of.