- (1.) THE only argument canvassed before us by Mr, Jagan Nath Kaushal the learned senior advocate for the appellants to this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing their writ petition (Civil Writ 880 of 1971) is that the stipulation in the Government of India's order, dated April 23, 1970 (Annexure "c" to the writ petition) depriving the appellants of the benefits of the higher revised scale of pay from February 1, 1968, to April 22, 1970 in spite of expressly sanctioning such higher scale of pay for the appellants with effect from February 1, 1968, is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, inasmuch as no such rider has been added in the case of any other member of the High Court establishment all of whom have been allowed to draw arrears of pay in their respective finally revised scales of pay with effect from February 1,1968. The circumstances which have given rise to this question are these.
(2.) BY notification, dated July 11, 1967, the Governor of Punjab constituted a singleman Pay Commission consisting of Mr. Justice Harbans Singh, who was at that time a Judge of this Court. The terms of reference of that Commission were: (a) to undertake a comprehensive review of the present structure of the different scales of pay, dearness allowance, other compensatory concessions and benefits of all categories of employees under the rule-making control of the State Government and recommend such changes or rationalisation in the structure of the pay scales of such employees as are necessary and feasible; (b) in making its recommendations the Commission will take into consideration the social and economic obligations of the State by way of planned economic development. Though all categories of the employees of the Punjab Government fell within the scone of the reference, the establishment of the High Court was not covered by the terms of reference of the Commission as the said establishment is not subject to the rule-making power of the Punjab State, on account of its being the common High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, and for the Union Territory of Chandigarh, The then Chief Justice of the High Court, however, asked the Commission to consider informally the pay structure of the persons serving on the establishment of the High Court and, suggest revision of their pay-scales keeping in view the recommendations with regard to their counterparts in the Punjab Civil Secretariat. A separate report in that behalf was submitted by the Pay Commission to the Chief Justice (paragraphs 17. 1 and 17. 2 on page 107 of the report of the Punjab Pay Commission 1967-68 ). Since the scales of pay of the employees of the High Court and of the employees of the State of Punjab holding equivalent posts before the reorganisation of the State in 1966 used to be the same, the Chief Justice recommended for the adoption of the same scales of pay for the High Court establishment as had been revised by the Punjab Government for the common categories of posts which existed in the Secretariat. For the uncommon categories (counterparts of which did not exist in the Secretariat), the Chief Justice recommended revised scales of comparable posts existing in the Secretariat, for the approval of the President of India as required under Article 229 (2) read with the proviso to Article 231 (2) of the Constitution. So far as the Private Secretaries and Readers were concerned the recommendation of the Chief Justice was that their posts should be equated to the posts of Private Secretaries in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, and their scale of pay should be revised with effect from February 1, 1968, as was the case of the employees of the reorganised State of Punjab.
(3.) BY order, dated December 19, 1969 (Annexure "a" to the writ petition), sanction of the President of India to the equation of the existing scale of Rupees 250-450 for the posts of Private Secretaries/readers of the High Court with the corresponding revised scale of Rs. 300-25-600 existing in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, was conveyed by the Central Government to the Chandigarh Administration. A copy of that communication was endorsed to the Registrar of the High Court on January 7, 1970. The Chief Justice was, however, not satisfied with the above mentioned order as the scale of pay of the Private Secretaries in the Punjab Civil Secretariat had been raised to Rs. 450-25-500-30-650/30-800. He therefore, pressed the claim for the equation of the posts in question with those of the Private Secretaries in the Secretariat and for the benefit of the revised scale of Rs. 450-800 being given to the appellants. It was while accepting the said recommendation of the Chief Justice that the order in question was passed by the President of India in pursuance of which letter, dated April 23, 1970 (Annexure "c") was issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Home Secretary-Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, and a copy thereof endorsed to the Registrar of this Court. The heading of the letter was: Revision of pay-scale of Private Secretaries/readers to Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court, Punjab and Haryana. In the body of the letter it was stated as below: With reference to your letter No. 360-IH (S)-70/3610, dated 27-2-1970 on the above subject, I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the equation of the posts of Private Secretaries/ Readers to Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh with the posts of Private Secretaries in the Punjab Civil Secretariat and to the prescription of scale of Rs. 450-25-500-650/30-800 for these posts. This sanction will take effect from 1st February, 1968, but no arrears will be payable for past periods. 2. This letter issues with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance vide their U. O. No. 3272-E. III/a/ 70, dated 23rd April, 1970. I have underlined that portion of the above mentioned communication which is, according to the appellants, unconstitutional. Subsequently, by letter, dated September 5, 1970, (Annexure "b"), the Government of India directed that the time-scale of pay of Rs. 350-25-500/350-650 should be substituted for the scale of Rs. 300-25-600 sanctioned in December, 1969, vide Annexure "a". That letter has, however, no direct impact on the proposition with which we are faced as it is the common case of both sides that all the appellants have already been paid the amount of arrears due to them on account of the difference in their respective salaries which they were drawing in the original scale of Rs. 250-450 on the one hand, and the scale of Rs. 350-650 on the other, Similarly, it is the common case of both sides that all the appellants have been paid their salaries in the revised scale of Rs. 450-800 with effect from April 23, 1970. The only period to which the dispute relates is from February 1, 1968 to April 22. 1970. The different amounts to which the appellants would be entitled would represent the difference between their respective salaries in the scale of Rs. 350-650 on the one hand and Rs. 450-800 on the other, the exact amount depending on the amount of salary which any particular incumbent was drawing in the lower scale at that time. Aggrieved by the depriviation of the arrears at the enhanced rate, the appellants submitted their representation, dated October 21, 1970, to the Chief Justice and Judges of (he Court (Annexure "d" ). The said representation was rejected by the Chandigarh Administration vide its memorandum, dated December 21. 1970 (Annexure "d/1" ). This led to the writ petition being filed by the appellants.;