G.K.VYAS, J. - (1.) The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant-State of Rajasthan under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules challenging the validity of judgment dated 01.02.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.2/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ-petitioner-Rajasthan Judicial Employees Association and directed the State Government to consider the report of the Committee with utmost priority and decide the same with objectively and implement the same as per the observations made above with respect to even an anomaly which may have arisen for whatever reason during the recommendations by the High Court Committee and duly approved by the Full Court, and also restore parity in the pay scale and remove the anomaly keeping in mind the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. S.B. Vohra and Ors. as well as All India Judge's Association within four months.
(2.) After hearing the learned Addl. Advocate General, it emerges from the facts that in pursuance of directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in All India Judge's Association v. UOI and Ors., in W.P. (Civil) No.1022/1989, Justice Shetty was appointed to inquire about the service conditions of the staff members of the subordinate courts and to suggest ways to improve it. Admittedly after providing opportunity of being heard to the representatives of various associations, High Court and State Government/UTs were suggested measures for effective administration of courts as also made recommendations for grant of various allowances, pay scales, other benefits etc. to the employee of subordinate courts. The said report of Shetty Commission was perused by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and while deciding various applications filed in the case of All India Judge's Association (supra), following order dated was passed on 07.10.2009, which reads as under:- "In view off these circumstances, we direct that hereaffter these matters be considered by the respective High Courts off the States/UTs. We direct that: i) The High Courts, on judicial/administrative side, will ensure impllementation off the recommendations off the Shetty Commission within a reasonablle period off one year. (i) The High Court shall permit writ petitions or applications that may be filled by the individual or staff association representing the various members off the staff. ii) The High Courts shall also see that the recommendations are implemented w.e.f. 1.4.2003. iii) There shall be benefit off one advance increment on the existing pay-scale instead off initial pay-scale. In many off the States, the same benefit has been given to the members off the staff, the High Court should also see that these recommendations are implemented. iv) In some off the States based on various other pay commissions Reports, benefits had been given to the members off the staff, these benefits, if any, given shall be in addition to the recommendations given by the Shetty Commission. In any case, if the members off the staff association/subordinate staff getting higher benefits under any off the recommendations off the pay commission/Government Orders, they shall be permitted to avail those benefits. Office is directed to send back all the records, if any, to the respective High Courts. A copy off the consolidated Report off the Shetty Commission may also be sent to the respective High Courts. A copy off the consolidated Report off the Shetty Commission may also be sent to the respective High Courts/UTs."
(3.) Admittedly, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the State Government and all the States and High Court, were bound to implement the above directions but directions were implemented, the petitioner Association, submitted a representation before the Registrar General, High Court on 26.11.2009 requesting therein that all the 19 classified recommendations of Shetty Commission be carried out and necessary amendments be made in the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Establishment Rules, 1986 and other rules wherever the said amendment was required.;