Telangana High Court
S.Surendar Singh vs The State Of Telangana, And Another on 27 June, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 24234 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning G.O.Ms.No.43,
dated 01.09.2018 issued by the 1st respondent and not paying
lawful salary and allowances for the past 35 months to
petitioner on par with the members of the Telangana Public
Service Commission, Telangana B.C. Commission, Telangana
SC,ST Commission as illegal and also against the principles of
natural justice and the Telangana State Minorities Commission
Act, 1998. Consequently, a direction is sought to the 1st
respondent to pay lawful salary and allowances for 35 months
to petitioner on par with the members of the Telangana Public
Service Commission, Telangana B.C.Commission, Telangana
SC,ST Commission.
2. Petitioner is stated to have been appointed as
member of Telangana State Minority Commission under the
provisions of Telangana State Minority Commission Act, 1998
(Act 31 of 1998) (for short, 'the Act') through Gazette No. 1A,
dated 02.01.2018. It is stated, the 1st respondent issued the
impugned G.O. fixing the salary and allowances to the Vice-
Chairman and members as follows :-
" Sitting fee for every sitting Rs.1000/- not exceeding 20,000 Per
Month, allowance, Telephone, Stationary and other Expenses Rs. 5000/- Per
Month, Travelling Allowances for the tours undertaking as Group A Senior Scale
of Government Officer.
It is further stated that the 1st respondent had also
issued G.O.Ms. No. 44, dated 01.09.2018 fixing salary and
allowances to the Chairman, Telangana State Minority
Commission at Rs.1,00,000/- ( Lump-sum Salary) and other
allowances on par with cabinet minister for the State of
Telangana, whereas petitioner has been drawing average
approximately Rs. 45,000/- per month and the Chairman was
drawing per month above Rs.3,00,000/-. Further it is stated
that, subsequently the 1st respondent had issued G.O.Ms No. 34
dated 18.07.2019 duly revising the pay to the Chairman that
drawing lumpsum salary and allowances on par with Chairman
of Telangana State Public Service Commission and Chairman
Backward Class Commission, which Chairman has been
drawing since then till today at Rs. 2,25,000/- per month and
allowances. The members of the Telangana State Public Service
Commission (TSPSC) and BC Commission are also drawing on
par with the members of the Telangana State Public Service
Commission Rs.2,24,100/-per month and allowances, but the
1st respondent has not revised the salary of petitioner.
Petitioner further stated that subsequently, he
made representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister to revise
salaries and allowances on par with members of TSPSC and BC
Commission as enhanced to Chairman of Telangana Minority
Commission on 09.09.2019, the same was perused by the
Hon'ble Chief Minister Office which directed the 1st respondent
to examine the same and take necessary action through
proceedings No. 158/ CMP-OV/2019, dated 28.12.2019, but the
1st respondent has not enhanced the salaries and allowances
on par with the members of TSPSC and BC Commission which
is nothing but discriminatory and arbitrary. It is stated, salary
and allowances of Chairman of Telangana State Minority
Commission were enhanced on par with Chairman of TSPSC
and BC Commission, but the members of the Telangana State
Minority Commission Salaries and allowances have not been
enhanced on par with the former's members which amounts to
violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India, which cannot be allowed by law.
4. On the contrary, the 1st respondent has filed the
counter-affidavit stating that the Government vide
G.O.Rt.No.43, dated 01.09.2018 issued orders conferring
cabinet status to Chairman and vide Memo dated 26.11.2019,
clarified that Chairman, Telangana State Minorities Commission
is entitled to pay and other facilities as applicable to Hon'ble
Ministers as per Act 6 of 2016 from the date of conferring status
of cabinet Minister i.e 03.01.2018. It is stated that the
government vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 02.01.2018 constituted
Telangana State Minorities Commission with Chairman, Vice-
Chairman and five Members and petitioner is one among the
five. Therefore the said G.O is applicable only to Chairman,
Telangana State Minorities Commission but not to Vice-
Chairman and Members thereof. Government vide G.O.Ms.
No.44, dated 01.09.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.60, dated 11.09.2018
sanctioned allowances and other emoluments to Vice-Chairman
and Members of Telangana State Minorities Commission from
the date of assumption of charge as follows:
Sl.No. Allowances and other Emoluments Amount
1. Sitting fee for every sitting Rs.1,000/- per sitting
(not exceeding
Rs.20,000/- per month.
2 Allowance towards local conveyance, Rs.5,000/- per month.
telephone, stationery and other
expenses.
3 Travelling allowance and dearness At the rates admissible
allowance for the tours undertaken in to Group-A (Senior
performance of the functions. (Provided Scale) Government
that the TA & DA shall be limited to the Officer.
Tours not exceeding 10 days per
month)
It is stated that the Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 18.07.2019 revising the pay of Chairman,
Telangana State Minorities Commission, Hyderabad on par with
Chairman, Telangana State Public Service Commission and
Chairman, B.C Commission, Telangana State. It is vehemently
contended that it is the Government's prerogative to revise the
salaries to the Members of the Commission and it is not
mandatory to revise the salaries of the members of Minorities
Commission as and when the salaries are hiked for Members of
other constitutional bodies. Moreover, there is difference of pay
in salaries for Chairman and other bodies. Petitioner is the
former member of Telangana State Minorities Commission. The
Government already sanctioned certain allowances and other
emoluments to Vice-chairman and other members of Telangana
State Minorities Commission, hence, there is no violation of law.
It is further contended that Vice-chairman and
members of the Commission had requested the Government to
revise their salaries and allowances on par with members of
Telangana State Commission for SCs and STs and accordingly,
after careful consideration, the Government rejected their
request; lastly, it was contended that this Writ Petition is
neither maintainable in law nor on facts, therefore, sought for
dismissal of the Writ Petition
5. Petitioner filed the reply stating that Chairman, who
was appointed along with petitioner was paid salaries and
allowances under Sections 7 and 8 of the 1998 Act and
Regulations 2000 and the same was adopted by the Telangana
State on 22.08.2014 and the same are eligible to him also, but
petitioner was paid per sitting Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand Only) not exceeding Rs.20,000/- per month and local
conveyance, Telephone, Stationery and other expenses at
Rs.5,000/- per month and not paid allowances at par with
TSPSC Members, BC Commission Members. G.O.Ms.No.34,
dated 18.07.2019 was issued by the 1st respondent pertaining to
salary and allowances of the Chairman of the Telangana State
Minority Commission, on par with Telangana State Public
Service Commission, Chairman and B.C. Commission Chairman
at Rs.2,25,000/- per month and other allowances and not
paying salaries to petitioner, who was the member of the
Telangana State Minority Commission, Rs.2,24,100/- per
month.
6. Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel
for petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special
Government Pleader on behalf of learned Additional Advocate
General for respondents. Perused the record.
7. Firstly, it is to be noted that Government vide
G.O.Rt.No.43, dated 01.09.2018 issued orders conferring
cabinet status to Chairman and vide Memo dated 26.11.2019
clarified that Chairman, Telangana State Minorities Commission
is entitled to pay and other facilities as applicable to Hon'ble
Ministers as per Act 6 of 2016 from the date of conferring the
status of Cabinet Minister i.e 03.01.2018. Government vide
G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 02.01.2018 constituted Telangana State
Minorities Commission with one Chairman, Vice-Chairman and
five Members and petitioner was one of the said members.
Therefore the said G.O is applicable only to Chairman,
Telangana State Minorities Commission but not to Vice-
Chairman and Members thereof. Government vide G.O.Ms.
No.44, dated 01.09.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.60, dated 11.09.2018
sanctioned allowances and other emoluments to Vice-Chairman
and Members of Telangana State Minorities Commission from
the date of assumption of charge. Thereafter, the Government
issued G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 18.07.2019 revising pay of
Chairman, Telangana State Minorities Commission, Hyderabad
on par with Chairman, Telangana State Public Service
Commission and Chairman, B.C Commission, Telangana State.
It is Government's prerogative to revise the salaries to the
Members of the Commission and it is not mandatory on their
part as and when there is hike in salaries for Members of other
constitutional bodies like Telangana State SC, ST Commission
and Constitutional bodies like Telangana State Public Service
Commission. Moreover, there is difference of pay in salaries for
Chairman and other bodies. Petitioner is the former member of
Telangana State Minorities Commission. The Government
already sanctioned certain allowances and other emoluments to
Vice-chairman and other members of Telangana State Minorities
Commission.
8. At this juncture, it is convenient to rely upon few
cases which deal with interference of the Courts in the policy
decisions of the State.
9. Policy decisions of the State are not to be disturbed
unless they are found to be grossly arbitrary or irrational. In
this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Federation of Railway Officers
Association & Ors. vs. Union of India 1, wherein the Court
held as under:
" 12. In examining a question of this nature where a policy is evolved
by the Government judicial review thereof is limited. When policy
according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised
is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an
unrestricted discretion."
In matters affecting policy and requiring technical
expertise, Court would leave the same for decision of those who
are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is
inconsistent with the Constitution or arbitrary or irrational or
abuse of power, the Courts will not interfere with such matters.
Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble
(2003) 4 SCC 289
Supreme Court in Directorate of Film Festivals vs. Gaurav
Ashwin 2 where the Court held as follows:
"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well
defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities
examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy
nor are courts Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the
executive is entitled to formulate."
10. The scope of judicial review when examining a
policy of the government is to check whether it violates the
fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the
provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory
provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with
policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground
that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of
the policy and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy is the
subject of judicial review. The scope of judicial review in policy
matters is no longer res integra. It is settled law that Courts
would not, ordinarily, interfere with the policy decision of the
executive unless the same can be faulted on the grounds of
mala fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness, in
which case the policy would render itself to be declared
(2007) 4 SCC 737
unconstitutional. In State of Punjab vs. Ram Lubhaya
Bagga 3, it was held thus:
".......When Government forms its policy, it is based on
number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based
on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It would be
dangerous if Court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the
policy or its appraisal based on facts set out in affidavits. The Court
would dissuade itself from entering into this realm which belongs to
the executive. It is within this matrix that it is to be seen whether the
new policy violates Article 21when it restricts reimbursement on
account of its financial constraints.
11. On similar lines was the pronouncement of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs Delhi
Administration 4 reported in, wherein the Apex Court held as
under:
" The challenge, thus, in effect, it to the executive policy
regulating trade in liquor in Delhi. It is well settled that the Courts, in
exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with
the policy decisions of the executive, unless the policy can be faulted on
grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc.
Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render
the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on
any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests
of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy. In tax and economic
regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial restraint, if not
judicial deference to the judgment of the executive. The Courts are not
expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of
time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been
adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the State."
(1998) 4 SCC 117
(2001) 3 SCC 635
12. In Balco Employees Union (Regd.) Vs Union of
India 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph 92 and 98 held
as under:
" In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government
to follow its own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the
shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may
result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality
is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law
or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be
interfered with by the Court.
98. In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the Courts
should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or investigation
and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgment of the experts who
may have arrived at a conclusion unless the Court is satisfied that there
is illegality in the decision itself."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in yet another decision
in Parisons Agrotech Private Limited vs. Union of India 6,
had reiterated the above said view and observed as under:
" No doubt, the Writ Court has adequate power of judicial
review in respect of such decisions. However, once it is found that
there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision,
bringing it within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, power of Judicial Review would not extend to determine the
correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of
finding out whether there could br more appropriate or better
alternatives.
Once we find that parameters of Article 14 are satisfied; there
was due application of mind in arriving at the decision which is
(2002) 2 SCC 333
(2015) 9 SCC 657
backed by cogent material; the decision is not arbitrary or irrational
and; it is taken in public interest, the Court has to respect such a
decision of the Executive as the policy making is the domain of the
Executive and the decision in question has passed the test of the
Judicial Review."
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing Civil
Appeal No. 5133 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No.30090 of
2018) titled Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association
vs State of Telangana held as under:
" Judicial review, as is well known, lies against the
decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. If
the decision making process is flawed inter alia by violation of the
basic principles of natural justice, is ultravires the powers of the
decision maker, takes into consideration irrelevant materials or
excludes relevant materials, admits materials behind the back of the
person to be affected or is such that no reasonable person would have
taken such a decision in the circumstances, the court may step in to
correct the error by setting aside such decision and requiring the
decision maker to take a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
The Court in the garb of Judicial Review, cannot usurp
the jurisdiction of the decision maker and make the decision itself.
Neither can it act as an Appellate Authority of the Telangana
Admission & Fee Regulatory Committee."
15. Likewise, in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar
Union (Regd.), Sindri vs Union of India 7, the Hon'ble Apex
Court observed as under:
" ....We certainly agree that judicial interference with the
administration cannot be meticulous in our Montesquien system of
separation of powers. The court cannot usurp or abdicate, and the
(1981) 1 SCC 568
parameters of judicial review must be clearly defined and never
exceeded. If the directorate of a government company has acted fairly,
even if it has faltered in its wisdom, the court cannot, as a super
auditor, take the Board of Directors to task.
This function is limited to testing whether the
administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of
unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of
procedure set for it by rules of public administration."
16. It is relevant to mention here that the judicial
restraint in exercise of judicial review was considered in State
of (NCT) of Delhi Vs Sanjeev 8, as follows:
"....One can conveniently classify under three heads the
grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by
Judicial Review. The first ground is illegality, the second irrationality,
and the third procedural impropriety.
These principles were highlighted by Lord Diplock
in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil
Service (commonly known as CCSU case). If power has been
exercised on a non-consideration or non-application of mind to
relevant factors, exercise of power will be regarded as manifestly
erroneous. If power (whether legislative or administrative) is
exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are
patently erroneous, such exercise of power will stand vitiated.
17. It needs no emphasis that complex executive
decisions in economic matters are necessarily empiric and
(2005) 5 SCC 181
based on experimentation. Its validity cannot be tested on any
rigid principles or application of any straitjacket formula. The
Court while adjudging the validity of an executive decision in
economic matters, must grant a certain measure of freedom or
play in the joints to the executive. Not mere errors but only
palpably arbitrary decisions alone can be interfered with in
judicial review.
18. In yet another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs Reserve
Bank of India 9, it was observed:
" The function of the Court is to see that lawful authority is
not abused but not to appropriate to itself the task entrusted to that
authority. It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory
powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its power. It must keep
within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good
faith and it must act reasonably. Courts are not to interfere with
economic policy which is the function of experts."
It is not the function of the Courts to sit in judgment over
matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the
expert bodies. In such matters, even experts can seriously and
doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be expected to decide them
without even the aid of experts. In the context of Indian
jurisprudence, the Constitution is the supreme law.
All executive or legislative actions have to be tested on the anvil
(1992) 2 SCC 343
of the same. Such actions will have to draw their sustenance as
also their boundaries under the same. Any action falling foul of
the constitutional guarantees will call for corrective action in
judicial review to ensure adherence to the constitutional ethos.
But so long as the fabric of the constitutional ethos is not set as
under, Courts will have to exercise restraint, more particularly
in matters concerning domain experts, else the risk of justice
being based on individual perceptions which may render myths
as realities inconsistent with the constitutional ethos.
Courts often adjudicate disputes that raise the question of how
strictly should they scrutinise executive or legislative action.
Therefore, Courts have identified certain questions as being
inappropriate for judicial resolution or have refused on
competency grounds to substitute their judgment for that of
another person on a particular matter.
19. In the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it
was held that Courts cannot usurp the jurisdiction of decision-
makers in the garb of judicial review, while setting aside the
Telangana High Court's Orders fixing Fee Structure of Unaided
Minority & Non-minority Institutions for Engineering Courses
for 2016-17 & 2018-19 academic years in Civil Appeal Nos.
5133-35 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 30090 of 2018) in
the case of Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association
Vs State of Telangana.
20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
decision taken by the State more particularly with respect to
allowances and other emoluments cannot be disturbed since
they are not found to be grossly arbitrary or irrational. Further,
it is government's prerogative to revise the salaries to the
Members of the Commission and it is not mandatory for the
Government to revise the salaries of the members of Minorities
Commission, as and when the salaries are hiked for Members of
other constitutional bodies like Telangana State SC, ST
Commission and Constitutional bodies like Telangana State
Public Service Commission. Further, there is difference of pay in
salaries for Chairman and other bodies. Petitioner is the former
member of the Telangana State Minorities Commission and the
government had already sanctioned certain allowances and
emoluments to Vice-chairman and other members of the
Telangana State Minorities Commission. Therefore, viewed from
any angle, the relief sought by petitioner is misconceived and
any interference from this Court would amount to usurping the
jurisdiction of decision-makers in the garb of judicial review
which is impermissible in view of the decisions cited supra.
21. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
22. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
27th June 2024
ksld
