STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ASSOCIATION OF COURT STENOS PA PS
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
January 09,2002
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Appellant
VERSUS
ASSOCIATION OF COURT STENOS,PERSONAL ASSISTANT
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE AS SOCIATION SUPREME COURT FOURTH CLASS EM PLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION S P JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
DEVA SINGH, LAW OFFICER, HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2010-11-358] [REFERRED TO]DEVA SINGH, LAW OFFICER, HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2010-11-358] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S B VOHRA [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-50] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S B VOHRA [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-50] [REFERRED TO]
NAOREM SURCHAND SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2005-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
NAOREM SURCHAND SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2005-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
GAUHATI HIGH COURT (PRINCIPAL SEAT), EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
GAUHATI HIGH COURT (PRINCIPAL SEAT), EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM N THAKKER VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM N THAKKER VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
CHINGSUBAM NINGOL VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2010-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
CHINGSUBAM NINGOL VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2010-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTSNA RANI DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTSNA RANI DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS FEDERATION EMPLOYEES UNION VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON [LAWS(BOM)-2003-1-146] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS FEDERATION EMPLOYEES UNION VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON [LAWS(BOM)-2003-1-146] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-150] [REFERRED TO]
V K GUPTA, SECTION OFFICER DECREE SECTION LKO VS. HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-626] [REFERRED TO]
V K GUPTA, SECTION OFFICER DECREE SECTION LKO VS. HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-626] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-150] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, NON-GAZETTED EMPLOYEES/OFFICIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2023-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, NON-GAZETTED EMPLOYEES/OFFICIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2023-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, NON-GAZETTED EMPLOYEES/OFFICIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2023-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, NON-GAZETTED EMPLOYEES/OFFICIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2023-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. BIHAR HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION [LAWS(PAT)-2013-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. BIHAR HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION [LAWS(PAT)-2013-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
PALITANA SUGAR MILLS P LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2004-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
PALITANA SUGAR MILLS P LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2004-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SANKAR BHATTACHARJEE VS. GAUHATI HIGH COURT [LAWS(GAU)-2010-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SANKAR BHATTACHARJEE VS. GAUHATI HIGH COURT [LAWS(GAU)-2010-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE HARI AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD VS. DEEPAK VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2015-9-93] [REFERRED]
SHREE HARI AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD VS. DEEPAK VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2015-9-93] [REFERRED]
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL MAZDOOR ASSOCIATION VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2014-9-167] [REFERRED TO]
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL MAZDOOR ASSOCIATION VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2014-9-167] [REFERRED TO]
R.N. ARUL JOTHI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME [LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-416] [REFERRED TO]
R.N. ARUL JOTHI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME [LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-416] [REFERRED TO]
R.N. ARUL JOTHI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME [LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-416] [REFERRED TO]
R.N. ARUL JOTHI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME [LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-416] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS VS. THE HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-6-72] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS VS. THE HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-6-72] [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL KHOSA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF J&K AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2014-12-50] [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL KHOSA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF J&K AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2014-12-50] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SECTION OFFICER BROTHERHOOD [LAWS(SC)-2004-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SECTION OFFICER BROTHERHOOD [LAWS(SC)-2004-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. P HARI HARA PRASAD [LAWS(SC)-2002-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. P HARI HARA PRASAD [LAWS(SC)-2002-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
CLASS IV EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-5-160] [REFERRED TO]
CLASS IV EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-5-160] [REFERRED TO]
DEBABRATA CHAKROBORTY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-10-33] [REFERRED TO]
DEBABRATA CHAKROBORTY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-10-33] [REFERRED TO]
J M SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2016-1-310] [REFERRED]
J M SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2016-1-310] [REFERRED]
MS. ADELINE RODRIGUES AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-317] [REFERRED TO]
MS. ADELINE RODRIGUES AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-317] [REFERRED TO]
ADELINE RODRIGUES VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-167] [REFERRED TO]
ADELINE RODRIGUES VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-167] [REFERRED TO : (2002) 2 SCC 141]
ADELINE RODRIGUES VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-167] [REFERRED TO]
ADELINE RODRIGUES VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-167] [REFERRED TO : (2002) 2 SCC 141]
HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
ACCOUNTS SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF NAGALAND VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2006-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
ACCOUNTS SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF NAGALAND VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2006-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
CLASS IV EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-112] [REFERRED TO]
CLASS IV EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-112] [REFERRED TO]
SHADAB BEG AND 2 OTHERS VS. CHAIRMAN U P STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
SHADAB BEG AND 2 OTHERS VS. CHAIRMAN U P STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST WANI FOREST DIVISION VS. SANTOSH SURYABHANJI NIMBALKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2005-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST WANI FOREST DIVISION VS. SANTOSH SURYABHANJI NIMBALKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2005-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
R N ARUL JOTHI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME (CTS V) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT [LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
R N ARUL JOTHI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME (CTS V) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT [LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
R N ARUL JOTHI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME (CTS V) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT [LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
R N ARUL JOTHI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME (CTS V) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT [LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-91] [REFERRED TO;]
HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-91] [REFERRED TO;]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. HARI HARA PRASAD P [LAWS(SC)-2002-10-23] [REFERRED]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. HARI HARA PRASAD P [LAWS(SC)-2002-10-23] [REFERRED]
AKOIJAM RAGINIBALA DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2008-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
AKOIJAM RAGINIBALA DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2008-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
NANDESWAR KALITA AND ORS. VS. REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2002-7-39] [REFERRED]
NANDESWAR KALITA AND ORS. VS. REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2002-7-39] [REFERRED]
BABURAO DHONDIBA SALOKHE VS. KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2003-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
BABURAO DHONDIBA SALOKHE VS. KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2003-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Pattanaik, J. -
(1.)Leave Granted.
(2.)This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of Bombay High Court. The respondents are the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries attached to the Hon'ble Judges of Bombay High Court. They approached the High Court alleging that prior to 30th Sept., 1990, they were getting the same scale of pay, as was being paid to the Senior Personal Assistants, attached to the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary in the State of Maharashtra, but that parity has not been maintained after 1st Oct., 1990. Prayer was, therefore, made by the Association that the pay scale should be fixed in the same scale, as the Senior Personal Assistant attached to the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary in the Govt. of Maharashtra, has been fixed by the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The High Court by the impugned judgment, came to the conclusion that there was a parity of pay between the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries to the Judges of the High Court with the Senior Personal Assistant to the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra and when the Fifth Central Pay Commission has revised the pay scale of the Senior Personal Assistants to the Chief Secretary and fixed it at the scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200, there is no reason why these respondents would not be entitled to the same. The Court, therefore, directed applying the principle of "Equal pay for equal work" that the writ petitioners are entitled to they pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,000/- w.e.f. 1-1-996. In case of Private Secretaries to the Senior Administrative Judges of the Court, the Court went further and directed special allowance should be granted as may be deemed fit by the High Level Committee.
(3.)Mr. S.K. Dholakia, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the State, contended that the High Court was not justified in issuing the direction in the manner in which it has directed, which tantamounts to granting a specific scale by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226. According to Mr. Dholakia, the Court might be justified in issuing the direction to the Chief Justice to perform his duty under Art. 229(2) by framing a set of rules and fixing any pay scale therein. But by no stretch of imagination, the Court would be justified in granting a particular scale of pay to a particular class of employees in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226. On facts also, Mr. Dholakia submits that it is not correct that uptill 1991, a parity was being maintained between the pay scale of Private Secretary to the Judges and Senior Personal Assistant to the Chief Secretary inasmuch as in the High Court, while Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries were getting the pay scale of 2375-3500, but the Private Secretary to the Judges were getting the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 and under the Government, the Senior P.A. to the Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary was getting the pay scale of Rs. 2375-3500. The same was the position until the Fifth Pay Commission considered the pay structure and made the necessary recommendation. Under the Fifth Pay Commission's Recommendation, the Private Secretary to the Judges were given the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200 which is in pari materia of the pay scale given to the Senior Personal Assistant to the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary, whereas the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries were given the pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500, which is the pay scale given to the Selection Grade Stenographers in Mantralaya. According to Mr. Dholakia, it is, therefore, wholly unreasonable for the Court to direct that the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistant and Personal Secretaries in the High Court would be given the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,2000/-.
(2.)This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of Bombay High Court. The respondents are the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries attached to the Hon'ble Judges of Bombay High Court. They approached the High Court alleging that prior to 30th Sept., 1990, they were getting the same scale of pay, as was being paid to the Senior Personal Assistants, attached to the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary in the State of Maharashtra, but that parity has not been maintained after 1st Oct., 1990. Prayer was, therefore, made by the Association that the pay scale should be fixed in the same scale, as the Senior Personal Assistant attached to the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary in the Govt. of Maharashtra, has been fixed by the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The High Court by the impugned judgment, came to the conclusion that there was a parity of pay between the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries to the Judges of the High Court with the Senior Personal Assistant to the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra and when the Fifth Central Pay Commission has revised the pay scale of the Senior Personal Assistants to the Chief Secretary and fixed it at the scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200, there is no reason why these respondents would not be entitled to the same. The Court, therefore, directed applying the principle of "Equal pay for equal work" that the writ petitioners are entitled to they pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,000/- w.e.f. 1-1-996. In case of Private Secretaries to the Senior Administrative Judges of the Court, the Court went further and directed special allowance should be granted as may be deemed fit by the High Level Committee.
(3.)Mr. S.K. Dholakia, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the State, contended that the High Court was not justified in issuing the direction in the manner in which it has directed, which tantamounts to granting a specific scale by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226. According to Mr. Dholakia, the Court might be justified in issuing the direction to the Chief Justice to perform his duty under Art. 229(2) by framing a set of rules and fixing any pay scale therein. But by no stretch of imagination, the Court would be justified in granting a particular scale of pay to a particular class of employees in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226. On facts also, Mr. Dholakia submits that it is not correct that uptill 1991, a parity was being maintained between the pay scale of Private Secretary to the Judges and Senior Personal Assistant to the Chief Secretary inasmuch as in the High Court, while Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries were getting the pay scale of 2375-3500, but the Private Secretary to the Judges were getting the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 and under the Government, the Senior P.A. to the Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary was getting the pay scale of Rs. 2375-3500. The same was the position until the Fifth Pay Commission considered the pay structure and made the necessary recommendation. Under the Fifth Pay Commission's Recommendation, the Private Secretary to the Judges were given the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200 which is in pari materia of the pay scale given to the Senior Personal Assistant to the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary, whereas the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries were given the pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500, which is the pay scale given to the Selection Grade Stenographers in Mantralaya. According to Mr. Dholakia, it is, therefore, wholly unreasonable for the Court to direct that the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistant and Personal Secretaries in the High Court would be given the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,2000/-.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.