R Vs. RAVEENDRAN, J. - (1.) The Government of West Bengal appointed the Fourth Pay Commission in the year 1995. With the concurrence of the High Court, the State Government included the Calcutta High Court employees in the reference. Subsequently, on the representation of the employees of the Calcutta High Court, the Chief Justice of the High Court appointed a Three Judge Committee to examine the feasibility of making pay rules for them in exercise of powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. After examining the said Committees report, the Full Court resolved to constitute a Committee of five-Judges to advise the Chief Justice in framing the relevant rules. The five-Judge Committee examined the matter in detail and made two sets of draft Rules - the Calcutta High Court Services (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1998 and the Calcutta High Court Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1998. The Chief Justice approved the said two sets of Rules (for short the draft Service Rules and draft Pay Rules) and sent them to the State Government for approval of the Governor under the proviso to Article 229(2).
(2.) The State Government sent a reply dated 21.11.1998 expressing its inability to recommend the two Draft Rules for approval of the Governor, for the following four reasons : (a) Creation of new posts by the Chief Justice, proposed under the draft Service Rules, was not contemplated under Article 229. (b) The terms of reference to the Fourth Pay Commission included the High Court employees. The report of the said Pay Commission had already been received by the Government on 31.5.1998. (c) Approval of the draft Pay Rules for the High Court employees will result in treating them on a basis different from other Government employees and that will create unjust inequality, apart from administrative problems to the State Government. (d) The State was unable to bear the financial burden that would arise if the two sets of rules were introduced.
(3.) The High Court in its letter dated 21.12.1998 expressed the view that such rejection was not proper and against the spirit of Article 229. This brought forth a reply dated 11.1.1999 from the Chief Secretary (second respondent) to the Registrar of the High Court, pointing that on three earlier occasions (in the years 1971, 1981 and 1990, the High Court employees were included in the reference to the State Pay Commissions with the concurrence of the High Court and the recommendations of the said Pay Commissions were fully implemented in the case of High Court employees also. The letter further stated that the States decision not to recommend the draft Rules for approval of the Governor was in conformity with the constitutional provisions. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, an association of High Court employees, filed this petition challenging the refusal by the State Government, to approve the draft Service Rules and draft Pay Rules. The petitioner sought the following reliefs : (i) a declaration that the first respondent has acted arbitrarily, irrationally and in a discriminatory manner and its communications dated 21.11.1998 and 11.1.1999 are unconstitutional, null and void; (ii) a direction to the State Government to recommend to the Governor, approval of the said Rules under Article 229(2; and (iii) a declaration that the first respondent and/or the Governor should grant approval to the draft Service Rules and draft Pay Rules.;