State of Haryana Vs. Shri B.L. Gulati & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2249 of 1994
Petitioner: State of Haryana
Respondent: Shri B.L. Gulati & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2249 of 1994
Judges: DR. A.S. ANAND, CJI, R.C. LAHOTI & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 22, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963
Rule 14(1) (As amended by Punjab Superior Judicial Service (Haryana Second Amendment) Rules, 1988) – Amendment – Officers placed in selection grade – By amendment, denied benefit of spe-cial pay – Validity. Held that such denial is arbitrary and hence, invalid.
Held:
It is not disputed that on being placed in the selection grade, functions, responsibilities and duties of the member of the superior judiciary in Haryana under the existing judicial system do not get reduced in any way. The High Court has given cogent reasons for striking down the amendment, which on the face of it is irrational and we agree with those reasons. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Respondent, who was at the relevant time, a member of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, holding the post of District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance), finding himself aggrieved of an amendment made to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service (Haryana Second Amendment) Rules, 1988 vide notification, dated 2nd December, 1988, whereby Sub-rule(1) of Rule 14 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 was amended, filed a writ petition in the High Court. The precise grievance projected by the respondent in the writ petition was that by virtue of the said amendment, members of the Haryana Judicial Service placed in the selection grade, were held no longer entitled to draw any special pay and that the amendment was both irrational and arbi-trary.
2. The writ petition was contested in the High Court, by the State. In view of the limited nature of challenge, we are re-lieved of the necessity to recapitulate factual averments. Suf-fice it to notice that the respondent was denied the benefit of special pay on account of the impugned amendment. The Division Bench, while considering the merits of the case, opined :
“So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it has been established on record that the special pay was granted because of the arduous nature of duties assigned to the post of District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana, and not for compensating the incumbent of this post on account of non-availability of rent free accommodation, as has been pleaded by the respondents in the written statement. Otherwise also, statutory rules do not envis-age such a grant on account of non-availability of rent free accommodation for the incumbent of the post. The nature of duties attached to the post still remain arduous and do not undergo a change, only because the incumbent of the post, by virtue of his seniority, efficiency and consistent good work, is granted selec-tion grade. Selection grade is granted to a member of the Superi-or Judicial Service only when he is found efficient and competent enough to man the post and his past performance is rated high, in addition, to his seniority in the cadre. If the special pay en-joyed by him before the grant of selection grade is to be with-drawn from him on the grant of selection grade, then his seniori-ty, ability, proven merit and efficiency are to be at a discount with him. This cannot be the intention of the framers of the statutory rules.”
3. The High Court further noticed that members of the Indian Administrative Service, who are placed in the selection grade, were in receipt of special pay and it was only members of the Indian Administrative Service enjoying super time scale of serv-ice, who were not getting any special pay. The attention of the High Court was also drawn to the position, as existing in the State of Punjab, where also members belonging to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service were receiving special pay, irrespec-tive of the fact whether the judicial officers were in the selec-tion grade or not. Taking note of all these factors, the High Court struck down the amendment which introduced second proviso to Rule 14(1) of Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963, denying benefit of special pay to judicial officers on being granted selection grade as arbitrary, discriminatory and viola-tive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The orders issued in various cases as a consequence of the amendment were also struck down.
4. After going through the record and hearing elaborate arguments addressed by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the State of Haryana, we are unable to persuade ourselves to differ from the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the High Court. It is not disputed that on being placed in the selection grade, functions, responsibilities and duties of the member of the superior judiciary in Haryana under the existing judicial system do not get reduced in any way. The High Court has given cogent reasons for striking down the amend-ment, which on the face of it is irrational and we agree with those reasons. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.
5. It is, however, clarified that accrual of interest @ 12% per annum, as ordered by the High Court, vide judgment impugned before us, shall commence only with effect from 1st January, 2001. In other words, in case payment of arrears etc. as a result of the striking down of the amendment, is made to those judicial officers, who became entitled to it under orders of the High Court, on or before 31st December, 2000, the same shall not carry any component of interest on the accrued amount, with effect from the date when that amount fell due, but in case payment of ar-rears etc. is not so made, then, on the total amount of arrears as calculated upto 31st December, 2000, interest would start accruing with effect from 1st January, 2001 @ 12% per annum till payment is made.
1. Respondent, who was at the relevant time, a member of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, holding the post of District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance), finding himself aggrieved of an amendment made to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service (Haryana Second Amendment) Rules, 1988 vide notification, dated 2nd December, 1988, whereby Sub-rule(1) of Rule 14 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 was amended, filed a writ petition in the High Court. The precise grievance projected by the respondent in the writ petition was that by virtue of the said amendment, members of the Haryana Judicial Service placed in the selection grade, were held no longer entitled to draw any special pay and that the amendment was both irrational and arbi-trary.
2. The writ petition was contested in the High Court, by the State. In view of the limited nature of challenge, we are re-lieved of the necessity to recapitulate factual averments. Suf-fice it to notice that the respondent was denied the benefit of special pay on account of the impugned amendment. The Division Bench, while considering the merits of the case, opined :
“So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it has been established on record that the special pay was granted because of the arduous nature of duties assigned to the post of District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana, and not for compensating the incumbent of this post on account of non-availability of rent free accommodation, as has been pleaded by the respondents in the written statement. Otherwise also, statutory rules do not envis-age such a grant on account of non-availability of rent free accommodation for the incumbent of the post. The nature of duties attached to the post still remain arduous and do not undergo a change, only because the incumbent of the post, by virtue of his seniority, efficiency and consistent good work, is granted selec-tion grade. Selection grade is granted to a member of the Superi-or Judicial Service only when he is found efficient and competent enough to man the post and his past performance is rated high, in addition, to his seniority in the cadre. If the special pay en-joyed by him before the grant of selection grade is to be with-drawn from him on the grant of selection grade, then his seniori-ty, ability, proven merit and efficiency are to be at a discount with him. This cannot be the intention of the framers of the statutory rules.”
3. The High Court further noticed that members of the Indian Administrative Service, who are placed in the selection grade, were in receipt of special pay and it was only members of the Indian Administrative Service enjoying super time scale of serv-ice, who were not getting any special pay. The attention of the High Court was also drawn to the position, as existing in the State of Punjab, where also members belonging to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service were receiving special pay, irrespec-tive of the fact whether the judicial officers were in the selec-tion grade or not. Taking note of all these factors, the High Court struck down the amendment which introduced second proviso to Rule 14(1) of Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963, denying benefit of special pay to judicial officers on being granted selection grade as arbitrary, discriminatory and viola-tive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The orders issued in various cases as a consequence of the amendment were also struck down.
4. After going through the record and hearing elaborate arguments addressed by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the State of Haryana, we are unable to persuade ourselves to differ from the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the High Court. It is not disputed that on being placed in the selection grade, functions, responsibilities and duties of the member of the superior judiciary in Haryana under the existing judicial system do not get reduced in any way. The High Court has given cogent reasons for striking down the amend-ment, which on the face of it is irrational and we agree with those reasons. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.
5. It is, however, clarified that accrual of interest @ 12% per annum, as ordered by the High Court, vide judgment impugned before us, shall commence only with effect from 1st January, 2001. In other words, in case payment of arrears etc. as a result of the striking down of the amendment, is made to those judicial officers, who became entitled to it under orders of the High Court, on or before 31st December, 2000, the same shall not carry any component of interest on the accrued amount, with effect from the date when that amount fell due, but in case payment of ar-rears etc. is not so made, then, on the total amount of arrears as calculated upto 31st December, 2000, interest would start accruing with effect from 1st January, 2001 @ 12% per annum till payment is made.
