Rajasthan High Court Assistant ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1556 Raj

[2023/RJJD/004549]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10122/2021

1. Rajasthan High Court Assistant Employees Association Jodhpur through its Secretary Shri Jagdish Sen, Aged About 53 Years, Son of Shri Pusa Ram, Resident of C-19, Near Police Line, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

2. Bheema Ram S/o Shri Heera Ji, Aged About 50 Years, Resident of CG 43, High Court Colony, Jodhpur.

3. Chain Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh, Aged About 52 Years, H/IV/20 HUDCO Colony, Vikramaditya Colony, Jodhpur.

4. Om Prakash S/o Shri Dayal Singh, Aged About 58 Years, Resident of Plot No.272, Khasra No.49 Bhagwan Mahaveer Nagar, Nandri Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioners              :     Mr. Hemant Dutt
For Respondent No.1          :     Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG/Sr. Advocate
                                   assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi
For Respondent No.2          :     Ms. Abhilasha Bora



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

                                       Order

09/02/2023

By the Court (Per Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J) :

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking

following reliefs :-

[2023/RJJD/004549] (2 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

"It is therefore, humbly prayed, that this writ petition

may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or

direction:-

(i) the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the

benefit of one advance increment to the petitioners

w.e.f. 1.5.2013 as has been granted to the other staff

members of the Rajasthan High Court vide

communication dated 1.6.2017;

(ii) the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the

overtime allowance to the petitioners;

(iii) the communication dated 1.6.2017 (Anx.-6) may

kindly be ordered to be modified accordingly.

(iv) the communication dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-13)

and the decision taken by the finance department in

rejecting the proposal sent by the Hon'ble High Court

may kindly be set aside.

(v) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this

Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts

and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed

in favour of the petitioners."

The petitioner No.1 is the Association, whose members are

Class-IV employes, Jamadars (Usher), Basta Bardar, Daftari,

Library Boy, Cook, Waiter and Sweeper serving under the

Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the Chauffeurs

(Drivers) attached to the Hon'ble Judges of this Court and protocol

duties.

[2023/RJJD/004549] (3 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

The petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Court by way

of writ of mandamus to direct the State Government to grant

them benefit of one advance increment w.e.f. 01.05.2013.

It is the case of the petitioners that the State Government

vide letter dated 01.06.2017 (Annexure-6) granted the benefit of

one advance increment to the 'Judicial Assistant', 'Junior Judicial

Assistant', 'Senior Personal Assistant', 'Personal Assistant' and

'Junior Personal Assistant', however, deprived the petitioners from

the said benefit.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that

though, time and again the Rajasthan High Court through the

Registrar General sent recommendations to the Principal

Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs Department, Jaipur for granting

one advance increment to its employees but the State

Government while accepting the said recommendations in respect

of some of the employees denied the same in respect of the

petitioners without justifying reasons.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court, after taking into

consideration the report of the committee, has come to the

conclusion that the Class-IV employees and Chauffeur (Driver) of

Rajasthan High Court performed hard duties with full dedication

even after office hours and on holidays without claiming any CCL

or over time allowances particularly having overburdened due to

acute shortage of staff, one advance increment be granted to

them but the State Government, without giving strong and cogent

[2023/RJJD/004549] (4 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

reasons, rejected the proposal of granting one advance increment

to the petitioners in cryptic manner.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the

recommendations of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High

Court should ordinarily be approved by the State Government and

refusal thereof must be for strong and adequate reasons. It is

argued that the State Government should bear in mind the special

nature of work being done by the employees of Rajasthan High

Court of which Hon'ble the Chief Justice and His Companion

Judges alone can really appreciate and when Hon'ble the Chief

Justice of Rajasthan High Court took a decision on the basis of the

recommendation of the committee, the State Government should

not have treated the same in casual manner.

In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the

petitioners has placed reliance on the decision dated 05.01.2004

rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and

Another Vs. S.B. Vohra and Others reported in (2004) 2

Supreme Court Cases 150.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed

that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the reliefs prayed

for in this writ petition may kindly be granted to the petitioners.

Replies to the writ petition have been filed on behalf of

respondents State Government and Rajasthan High Court.

The respondent No.2 - Rajasthan High Court, in its reply, has

stated that the recommendations sent by it were based on the

report of the committee. It is averred in the reply that the State

Government vide letter dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-13)

[2023/RJJD/004549] (5 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

informed the Rajasthan High Court that the proposal sent by it

with regard to grant of one advance increment to its employees

was examined by the Finance Department and it was found that

the same was not acceptable. It is further averred in the reply that

the matter was again sent for reconsideration and the State

Government vide letter dated 19.03.2021 sought some

information regarding grant of advance increment to similarly

situated employees in other High Courts, which was furnished to it

vide letter dated 22.10.2021 and the matter is pending with the

State Government.

Learned AAG/Sr. Advocate Mr. Sandeep Shah appearing on

behalf of respondent No.1 - State has informed that the said

recommendation sent to the State Government is also not

accepted by it and with the approval of His Excellency the

Governor of Rajasthan the information of this effect is

communicated to the Rajasthan High Court vide letter dated

31.01.2023, which is placed on record as Annexure-A of the

additional affidavit filed by learned AAG.

The respondent No.1 - State Government, in its reply, has

justified its action of not granting one advance increment to the

petitioners as granted to the other Ministerial Staff of the

Rajasthan High Court w.e.f. 01.05.2013 vide letter dated

01.06.2017 (Annexure-6) because the Rajasthan High Court did

not recommend for grant of said benefit to the Class-IV employees

and Chauffeur (Driver). It is further averred in the reply of the

respondent No.1 - State that there is hardly any justification for

grant of one advance increment to Class-IV employees and

[2023/RJJD/004549] (6 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

Chauffeur (Driver) of the High Court because all the employees

are getting Special Pay for performing special arduous nature of

duties for specific addition to the work or responsibility. It is also

averred in the reply of respondent No.1 - State that if the benefit

of one advance increment is granted to Class-IV employees and

Chauffeur (Driver) of the Rajasthan High Court, there are chances

that the other Class-IV employees of RLA, Government

Secretariat, RPSC etc. may also raise the similar demand and it

would be difficult for the State Government to fulfill their demand

because it will saddle additional recurring financial burden upon

the State Government.

Learned AAG/Sr. Advocate Mr. Sandeep Shah has argued that

the Rajasthan High Court provided information in respect of 19

High Courts of the country and out of which only in 5 High Courts

viz. Tripura, Madhay Pradesh, New Delhi, Jharkhand and Patna,

such type of benefit is granted, however, the same is also under

the orders passed in some of the writ petitions or pursuant to the

relevant service rules. It is also submitted that the High Court of

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh is also not providing any such

type of benefit to the Chauffeur (Driver), Usher (Jamadar) and

other Class-IV employees.

Learned AAG/Sr. Advocate Mr. Sandeep Shah appearing for

respondent No.1 - State has, therefore, prayed that the writ

petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

[2023/RJJD/004549] (7 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

The petitioners earlier filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.3133/2018 (Rajasthan High Court A.E.A. & Ors. Vs. The State

of Rajasthan & Anr.) before this Court seeking relief with regard to

grant them one advance increment, however, after issuance of

letter dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-13), the said writ petition was

withdrawn by them with liberty to file fresh and pursuant to that,

this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

It is noticed that the State Government vide order dated

01.06.2017 (Annexure-6) has granted benefit of one advance

increment to some of the employees fallen under the Ministerial

Staff of Rajasthan High Court w.e.f. 01.05.2013 pursuant to the

recommendation made by the Rajasthan High Court, however, in

those recommends, the Class-IV employees and Chauffeurs

(Drivers) of the Rajasthan High Court were not included.

Be that as it may, later on, Rajasthan High Court vide letter

dated 19.09.2019 (Annexure-12) recommended for grant of one

advance increment to its employees, however, the State

Government refused to accept the said recommendation vide

letter dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-13). Again the matter was

sent to the State Government vide letter dated 04.02.2021; the

State Government sought some information from the Rajasthan

High Court whether such benefit is granted in other High Courts or

not and the Rajasthan High Court submitted its response to the

State Government. Thereafter, the State Government has

communicated its decision vide letter dated 31.01.2023 again

refusing to accept the recommendation of Hon'ble the Chief

Justice of Rajasthan High Court.

[2023/RJJD/004549] (8 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

As per Article 214 of the Constitution of India, there has to

be a High Court for each State. As per Article 216 of the

Constitution of India, every High Court shall consist of a Chief

Justice and such other Judges as may be appointed by the

President from time to time. As per Article 229 of the Constitution

of India, Chief Justice of the High Court is the supreme authority

in the matter of appointments of High Court officers and servants.

It would be appropriate to quote Article 229 of the Constitution of

India, which reads as under :-

"229. Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts.--(1) Appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct:

Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose:

Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State.

(3) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund."

(emphasis supplied)

[2023/RJJD/004549] (9 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of

India and Another Vs. S.B. Vohra and Others (supra) while

rejecting the appeal filed on behalf of the Union of India against

the judgment of Delhi High Court, whereby it has issued a

mandamus to the Union of India to grant a particular Scale of Pay

to the Assistant Registrar of Delhi High Court, has made some

very important observations which reads as under :-

"10. Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India empowers the Chief Justice of the High Court to prescribe by rules the conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court. Such Rule shall, however, be subject to : (1) the provision of any law made by the legislature of the State; and (2) the approval of the President/Governor of the State so far as it relates to salary, allowances, leave or pensions.

11. Independence of the High Court is an essential feature for working of the democratic form of the Government in the country. An absolute control, therefore, has been vested in the High Court over its staff which would be free from interference from the Government subject of course to the limitations imposed by the said provision. There cannot be, however, any doubt whatsoever that while exercising such a power the Chief Justice of the High Court would only be bound by the limitation contained in Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the proviso appended thereto. Approval of the President/Governor of the State is, thus, required to be obtained in relation to the Rules containing provisions as regards salary, allowances, leave or promotion. It is trite that such approval should ordinarily be granted as a matter of course.

12 to 47. .........

48. It has to be further borne in mind that it is not always helpful to raise the question of financial implications vis-à-vis the effect of grant of a particular scale of pay to the officers of the High Court on the ground that the same

[2023/RJJD/004549] (10 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

would have adverse effect on the other employees of the State. Scale of pay is fixed on certain norms; one of them being the quantum of work undertaken by the officers concerned as well as the extent of efficiency, integrity etc. required to be maintained by the holder of such office. This aspect of the matter has been highlighted by this Court in the case of the judicial officers in All India Judges' Assn. v. Union of India40 as well as the report of the Shetty Commission.

49. The matter as regards fixation of scale of pay of the officers working in the different High Courts must either be examined by an expert body like Pay Commission or any other body but in absence of constitution of any such expert body the High Court itself is to undertake the task keeping in view the special constitutional provisions existing in this behalf in terms of Article 229 of the Constitution of India.

50. .........

51. Having regard to the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of this Court there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the recommendations of the Chief Justice should ordinarily be approved by the State and refusal thereof must be for strong and adequate reasons. In this case the appellants even addressed themselves on the recommendations made by the High Court. They could not have treated the matter lightly. It is unfortunate that the recommendations made by a high functionary like the Chief Justice were not promptly attended to and the private respondents had to file a writ petition. The question as regards fixation of a revision of the scale of pay of the High Court being within exclusive domain of the Chief Justice of the High Court, subject to the approval, the State is expected to accept the same recommendations save and except for good and cogent reasons."

If we examine the present matter in the light of above

observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that

[2023/RJJD/004549] (11 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

respondent No.1 - State has rejected the recommendations sent

by the Rajasthan High Court in a very cursory manner.

The extract of letter dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-13) of

State Government is reproduced hereunder :-

"jktLFkku ljdkj fof/k ,oa fof/kd dk;Z foHkkx

Øekad% i-8¼6½U;k;@2019 t;iqj] fnukad% 14-12-2020

jftLVªkj tujy jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;

tks/kiqjA

fo'k;%& Regarding approval of His Excellency the Governor for sanction of one advance increment to the Class-IV employee of Rajasthan High Court.

lanHkZ%& vkidk i= Øekad% I/A(iii)(a)01/12/2019/1270 fnukad 04-08-2020 egksn;]

mi;qZDr fo'k;kUrxZr vkids lanfHkZr i= ds Øe esa fuosnu gS fd prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa dks fnukad 01-09-2019 ls ,d vfxze osru o`f) fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa i=koyh foÙk foHkkx dks fHktok;s tkus ij foÙk foHkkx us fuEukuqlkj ys[k fd;k gSa %& ^^ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa dks fnukad 01-09-2019 ls ,d vfxze osru o`f) (one advance increment) Lohd`r fd;s tkus ds izLrko dk foÙk foHkkx }kjk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ds vkns"k fnukad 19-09-2019 }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa dks fnukad 01-09-2019 ls ,d vfxze osru o`f) (one advance increment) Lohd`r fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa izLrko Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA ;g fu.kZ; ekuuh; jkT;iky egksn; ds }kjk vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gSA** lwpukFkZ ,oa vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf'kr gSA"

[2023/RJJD/004549] (12 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

After rejection of recommendation sent by the Rajasthan

High Court, the Registrar General of Rajasthan High Court vide

letter dated 04.02.2021 again requested the State Government to

grant benefit of one advance increment to Chauffeur (Driver),

Class-IV employees and Jamadar (Usher) of Rajasthan High Court

w.e.f. 01.05.2013 in parity with the other Ministerial Staff of

Rajasthan High Court. The said letter dated 04.02.2021 is

although not a part of record but the same has been supplied by

learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Rajasthan High Court.

The letter dated 04.02.2021 sent by Registrar General of

Rajasthan High Court reads as under :-

"No. Acctts/Estt/HC/Writs/191/2018/374 Date : 04/02/2021

From Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

To The Principal Secretary, Law & Legal Affairs Department, Jaipur.

Sub: Sanction of one advance increment to the Class - IV, Usher (Jamadar) and Chauffeur (Driver) of Rajasthan High Court.

Sir,

Apropos to above, I am directed to say that vide letter no. F.11(17)Nyay/02 dated 01.06.2017, financial and administrative sanction for granting one advance increment was accorded to following Ministerial Staff of Rajasthan High Court w.e.f. 01.05.2013 pursuant to notification dated 01.05.2013 with the concurrence of Finance Department I.D. No. 101702090 dated 01.06.2017 :-

[2023/RJJD/004549] (13 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

1. Judicial Assistant

2. Junior Judicial Assistant

3. Senior Personal Assistant

4. Personal Assistant

5. Junior Personal Assistant

Thereafter, Hon'ble the Chief Justice while appreciating the hard work and dedication of Class-IV of Rajasthan High Court pleased to recommend to grant one advance increment to them w.e.f. 01.09.2019 vide order no. Estt/HC/2019/324 dated 19.09.2019 which was forwarded vide letter no.1730 dated 19.09.2019 for necessary approval from His Excellency the Governor which was declined by the Finance Department vide communication dated 14.12.2020.

Further, D.B.Civil Writ Petition no. 3133/2018- Rajasthan High Court A.E.A. & Ors.Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. was filed by the petitioners for seeking relief with regard to granting them one advance increment and pursuant to order dated 22.11.2019 of Hon'ble Division Bench, vide letter dated 11.12.2019 request was made for making necessary compliance but response there is still awaited.

Now, Hon'ble the Chief Justice is pleased to recommend to extend benefit of one advance increment to Driver (Chauffeur), Class-Iv and Jamadar (Usher) of Rajasthan High Court w.e.f. 01.05.2013 in parity with other Ministerial Staff of High Court.

Therefore, I am directed to again request you to take up the matter with the State Government and get issued Administrative and Financial sanction for granting one advance increment to the Chauffeur, Usher and Class-IV w.e.f. 01.05.2013 with the parity of other Ministerial Staff of Rajasthan High Court.

Your sincerely

-sd/-

REGISTRAR (ADMN)"

[2023/RJJD/004549] (14 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

The above referred recommendation was also not accepted

by the State Government and a letter dated 31.01.2023

(Annexure-A) was communicated to the Rajasthan High Court,

which reads as under :-

"jktLFkku ljdkj fof/k ,oa fof/kd dk;Z foHkkx

Øekad% i-8¼6½ U;k;@2019 t;iqj] fnukad% 31-01-2023

Jheku jftLVªkj tujy jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;

      tks/kiqjA

            fo'k;%&         Regarding         Sanction       of      one     advance
                            increment    of  the  Class-IV, Usher
                            (Jamadar) and Chauffeur (Driver) of
                            Rajasthan High Court.
            LkanHkZ%&       bl foHkkx ds lela[;d i= fnukad 28-09-2022
                            ,oa         vkids        i=        Øekad

Acctts/Estt/HC/Writs/19/2018/2449 fnukad 07-11-2022

mi;qZDr fo'k;kUrxZr vkids i= ds Øe esa fuosnu gS fd prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa] teknkj ,oa okgu pkydksa dks ,d vfxze osru o`f) fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa i=koyh foÙk foHkkx dks fHktok;s tkus ij foÙk foHkkx us fuEukuqlkj ys[k fd;k gSa %& ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10122/2021 esa ikfjr vkns"k fnukad 14-12-2022 ds Øe esa foÙk foHkkx dh fVIi.kh fuEukuqlkj gS%& ^^jkT; ljdkj }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj ds v/khu prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh] teknkj (USHER) ,oa okgu pkyd (CHAUFFEUR) ds in ij dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dks fnukad 01-05-2013 ls ,d vfxze osru o`f) (Advance Increment) fn;s tkus ds izLrko dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA mDr izLrko O;ogkfjd ,oa mfpr ugha gksus ds dkj.k Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA ;g ekuuh; jkT;iky egksn; ls vuqeksfnr gSA** lwpukFkZ ,oa vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf'kr gSA"

[2023/RJJD/004549] (15 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

From the plain reading of the above referred letters dated

14.12.2020 (Annexure-13) and 31.01.2023 (Annexure-A), it is

clear that no reason has been provided for not accepting the

recommendations sent by the Rajasthan High Court.

From the copy of note-sheets of relevant file, which have

been supplied by learned AAG Mr. Sandeep Shah, it is revealed

that the factors which prevailed upon the State Government for

refusing the recommendations made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice

are that many of the High Courts are not granting such benefits to

such employees and it may lead to financial implications upon the

State Government because the similarly situated employees of the

other institutions such as RLA, Government Secretariat, RPSC etc.

may also raise similar demand.

Way back in the year 2014, Hon'ble the Administrative Judge

and two other senior most Judges of Rajasthan High Court

recommended to grant Grade Pay more than the next higher

Grade Pay to the employees of Rajasthan High Court looking to

the nature of job and duties and pursuant to that, a

recommendation was sent to the State Government vide letter

dated 07.02.2014 (Annexure-4). Thereafter again vide letters

dated 19.09.2019 (Annexure-12) and 04.02.2021,

recommendations were sent.

Unfortunately, the State Government refused to accept the

request of Rajasthan High Court vide letters dated 14.12.2020

(Annexure-13) and 31.01.2023 (Annexure-A) in very cursory and

causal manner without mentioning single justified reason.

[2023/RJJD/004549] (16 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

The considerations, which were in favour of the petitioners,

while recommending to grant them one advance increment,

cannot be brushed aside by the State of Government lightly.

We are of the view that every High Court faces particular

challenges to run its administration smoothly. To meet those

different challenges, no universal formula can be applied for each

High Court and every High Court has to find its own mechanism.

The challenges which the Rajasthan High Court is facing in smooth

running of its administration may not be there in other High

Courts, so only for this reason that most of the High Courts are

not granting benefits to its employees of same category, the State

Government cannot refuse to accept those recommendations.

So far as another factor of financial implication on the State

Government is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Union of India and Another Vs. S.B. Vohra and Others

(supra) particularly in Para No.48 has addressed this issue and

opined that such consideration cannot be a ground for refusal of

recommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

The State Government should consider the special nature of

work done by the employees of Rajasthan High Court of which

Hon'ble the Chief Justice and His Companion Judges are having

knowledge. If the needs of the High Courts are not taken care by

the State Government, it would be very difficult for the High

Courts to conduct judicial works smoothly.

In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the

decision of State Government of refusing to grant the benefit of

[2023/RJJD/004549] (17 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

one advance increment to Class-IV employees of Rajasthan High

Court is required reconsideration.

At this stage, we deem it appropriate to observe that

certainly this Court can issue a writ of mandamus to the State

Government to grant benefit of one advance increment to the

employees of Rajasthan High Court but keeping in view the

observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of

Union of India and Another Vs. S.B. Vohra and Others

(supra) particularly in Para Nos.12 to 34, we restrain ourselves

from issuing writ of mandamus to the State Government so that it

may exercise its jurisdiction in the matter in hand.

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a

direction to the State Government to reconsider the matter and

take appropriate decision in respect of the recommendation sent

by the Rajasthan High Court vide letter dated 04.02.2021 for

grant of one advance increment to Chauffeur (Driver), Class-IV

employees and Jamadar (Usher) of Rajasthan High Court w.e.f.

01.05.2013, to maintain parity with the other Ministerial Staff of

Rajasthan High Court, keeping in view the observations/directions

given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of

India and Another Vs. S.B. Vohra and Others (supra) in

accordance with law within a period of two months from the date

of receipt of certified copy of this order.

We trust and hope that the State Government shall adopt an

objective view in the matter and its decision will not be affected by

the considerations, which prevailed with it while refusing to accept

[2023/RJJD/004549] (18 of 18) [CW-10122/2021]

the recommendations sent by the Rajasthan High Court on earlier

occasions.

No order as to costs.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Abhishek Kumar S.No.119

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)