http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: GYAN PRAKASH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/10/1997

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K. Venkataswami      Aggrieved by  the  judgment  of  Delhi  High  Court  in C.W.NO. 433/90  dated 2.4.1992, this appeal by special leave has been preferred.      The  appellant  presently  a  member  of  Delhi  Higher Judicial Service who presented his case both before the High Court and  this Court  in person,  moved the  High Court  by filing the  said Writ  Petition seeking two reliefs (a) that the post  of Senior  Subordinate Judge  which was classified under the  Delhi Judicial  Service should have been upgraded when the posts of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Addition Chief Metropolitan  Magistrate had  been upgraded from Delhi Judicial Service  to Delhi  Higher Judicial  Service in  the year 1985  and (b)  that the  petitioner had,  prior to  his promotion  been   discharging  the   functions   of   Senior Subordinate Judge  and, therefore,  during that time when he was discharging  the said function, he was entitle to pay in the scale of pay applicable to Additional District Judge.      It appears  from the  Judgement under  Appeal that  the appellant placed on Section 39(3) of Punjab Courts Act which enabled him  as a  Senior Sub-Judge  to hear  appeals  under certain circumstances  and contended  that he must be deemed to be  discharging the function of a District Judge at least for the  purpose  of  payment  of  salary.  He  also  placed reliance on  Article 236(a)  of the  Constitution  of  India which defines  the expression  ‘District Judge’. It has also been contended  before the  High Court  that in  the face of upgrading the  post of  Chief Magistrate, the denial of same privilege to  the  post  of  Senior  Subordinate  Judge  was arbitrary and unsustained in law.      The High  Court in its considered and reasoned judgment found that  the post  of Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate  and Additional  Chief   Metropolitan  Magistrate   were  rightly upgraded and  in any event by holding that the said posts of Chief   Metropolitan   Magistrate   and   Additional   Chief Metropolitan Magistrate were wrongly upgraded, the appellant was not going to get any relief on the account. However, the High Court  made it  clear that  they have  not examined the correctness of  the allegations  of the petitioner before it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

(appellants herein)  that the  posts of  Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate and  Additional  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrates have been wrongly upgraded.      On the  contention based  on Section  39(3)  of  Punjab Courts Act, the High Court held as follows:-      "The petitioner  is  also  claiming      that he  should be  paid  the  same      salary as  is  being  paid  to  the      Addl. District Judge for the period      during This  contention is based on      the ground that under Section 39(3)      of  the   Punjab  Court  Act,  that      appeals lying to the District Court      from preferred  to such subordinate      Judges as  may be  mentioned in the      notification to  be issued  by  the      High Court.  Under  this  provision      when a  Notification is  issued and      the    appeals    are.    thereupon      preferred,  then,   Section   39(3)      inter  alia,   provides  that  "the      Court  of  such  other  Subordinate      Judge  shall  be  deemed  to  be  a      District Court  for the purposes of      all appeals so preferred".      The petitioner  also relies  on the      provisions of  F.R. 49  and submits      that   as    the   petitioner   was      discharging the duties and function      which  ordinarily   meant   to   be      discharged by  the District  Judge,      therefore, he  was entitled  to get      the same  salary  as  that  of  the      Addl. District Judge.      We find no merit in this contention      Section  39(3)   enabled  the  High      Court to  delegate  powers  of  the      District  Court   in  hearing   the      appeals to  any Subordinate  Judge.      In pursuance thereof the High Court      issued a  Notification on 16th May,      1993 in  which it  was, inter alia,      provided that  appeals lying to the      District  Court  from  decrees  for      orders passed  by  any  subordinate      Court (a)  in a small cause case of      a value not exceeding Rs. 500/- and      (b) in an unclassed suit of a value      not exceeding  Rs. 100/-  shall  be      preferred to the senior Subordinate      Judge of the First Class exercising      jurisdiction within such territory.      It was  also provided  in the  said      Notification that the Court of such      Senior  Subordinate  Judge  of  the      First Class,  shall be deemed to be      a District  Court for  the purposes      of all  such  appeals  Notification      was issued  under Section  39(3) by      which herein  to hear appeals lying      top the District Court from decrees      or orders passed by any subordinate      Judge (a)  in a money suit of value      not exceeding  Rs. 500/- and (c) in      an unclassed  suit of  a value  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

    exceeding Rs.  500/-. It  was  also      stated therein  that  "The  Hon’ble      Chief  Justice   and   Judges   are      further pleased  to direct that the      Court of  Such Subordinate Judge of      First  Class   at  Delhi  shall  be      deemed to  be a  District Court for      the purpose of hearing appeals only      the Subordinate  Judge is deemed to      be  a   District  Court.  A  Senior      Subordinate   Judge,   like   other      Subordinate Judges, is empowered to      hear suits  of  a  becuniary  value      which the  other Subordinate  Judge      can hear. It is in addition to that      Power  to   try  the  suit  that  a      limited jurisdiction  is  given  to      hear appeals  in certain  cases.  I      cannot be  that the petitioner on a      single  day,  when  he  is  hearing      entitled to  higher salary but when      he is  trying a suit he is entitled      to the pay and allowances like that      of     a     Subordinate     Judge.      Furthermore.  in  the  notification      itself  the   petitioner  has  been      described as  "Shri  G.P.  Thareja,      Sub-Judge is Ist Class, Delhi". The      High Court has always regarded him,      while  he  was  working  as  Senior      Subordinate Judge, as a Subordinate      Judge  Ist   Class  and  not  as  a      District Court.  The fiction  which      is  created  by  a  law  cannot  be      extended beyond  the  purposes  all      appeals from  the Subordinate Judge      ordinarily  lie   to  the  District      Court it is only for the purpose of      appeals   of    limited   pecuniary      jurisdiction   that    the   Senior      Subordinate Judge  is auhtorized to      hear the  same. Though  he  may  be      discharging the functions which the      District    Court     would    have      discharged, in  the absence of such      a by  no  stretch  of  imagination,      become   a   district   Court.   By      delegating some  function a  Senior      Subordinate Judge  cannot be deemed      to  be  promoted  to  the  District      Court.      Even the  provisions of F.R. 49 are      not applicable.  The powers  of the      petitioner  as  Senior  Subordinate      Judge  and   that  of   the   Addl.      District  Judge   or  the  District      Judge  were  no  co-extensive.  The      pecuniary   jurisdiction   of   the      Senior  Subordinate  Judge  to  try      civil suits  at the  time when  the      petitioner w  as working  as Senior      Subordinate  Judge   was  upto  Rs.      25,000/- . The jurisdiction to hear      the appeals  was  only  limited  to      those suits  whose value  has  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

    set out  hereinabove. The pecuniary      jurisdiction, .p112  "on the  other      hand, of the District Judge and the      Addl. District  Judge to try a suit      ranged from  Rs. 25,000/-  to Rs. 1      try a  suit the  appeals lay from a      suit valued  upto Rs. 10.000/0. The      Addl.  District   Judge   and   the      District Judge  are higher  in rank      than a Senior Subordinate Judge and      the Addl.  District Judge  can also      be empowered  to  conduct  Sessions      trials  which   power   cannot   be      conferred on the Senior Subordinate      Judge.      In our  opinion, therefore there is      no merit in this contention."      Undoubtedly  the   Delhi  High  Court  recommended  the inclusion  of   the  posts   of  Senior   Sub  Judge.  Chief Metropolitan Magistrate  and Judge  Small Cause Court, Delhi in  the   Delhi  Higher  Judicial  Cadre.  The  reasons  for inclusion of  Senior Sub  Judge  in  Delhi  Higher  Judicial Service are as follows:-      "The post of Senior Sub-Judge is of      special significance  in Delhi. The      senior   most   member   of   Delhi      Judicial Service  from the cadre of      112, is invariably posted as Senior      Sub-ordinate Judge.  Under  Section      34 of  the Punjab Courts Act, 1918,      he  is   the  person  appointed  to      receive plaints  and assign  to the      Sub-ordinate Judges numbering about      30 daily in Delhi. Besides his work      as  Administrative   Head,  he   is      Courts  from   decrees  or   orders      passed by  any  Sub-ordinate  Judge      under Section  39(3) of  the Punjab      Courts Act.      i) In  a Money  suit of a value not      exceeding Rs.1000/-;      ii) In  a land  suit of a value not      exceeding Rs. 500/-.      iii) In  an  unclassed  suit  of  a      value not  exceeding Rs.  500/- are      preferred to  him and  his Court is      deemed to  be a  District Court for      the  purposes   or   such   appeals      preferred to it.      However the  Delhi  Administration  included  only  the Chief  Metropolitan   Magistrate  and   Addl.   Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground on the ground that those posts were expressly mentioned  in the  definition  of  District  Judge under Article 236(a).      When  the  Delhi  High  Court  again  pressed  for  the inclusion of the posts of Senior Sub Judge/Additional Senior Sub Judge and Judge, Small Causes Court, the following reply was sent by Delhi Administration on 12.8.1991:-      "Sub:- upgradation  of the posts of      Senior  Sub   Judge/Additional  Sr.      Sub-Judge and  Judge  Small  Causes      Court for  inclusion in  the  Delhi      Higher Judicial Services. Sir,      I am directed to refer to your D.O.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

    letter  No.  116/Gaz/CW/DHJS  dated      2nd  March,   1991  on   the  above      subject  and  to  convey  that  the      matter    has    been    considered      carefully in  the consultation with      the Department of Legal Affairs. It      is regretted that, having regard to      the relevant  provisions of Article      236 of  the Constitution  of  India      which   define    the    expression      ‘District  Judge’   and   ‘Judicial      Service’. the  posts  of  Sr.  Sub-      Judge/Additional      Sr.      Sub-      Judge/Judge, Small  Cause Court  be      upgraded and  included in the Delhi      High Judicial Service."      It is  in this  context the  High Court while rejecting the contention  based on  Article 236(a) of the Constitution of India, held thus :-      "In our  opinion  Article  236  (a)      clearly specifics  which posts  are      to be  regraded as being covered by      the expression  "District Judge. In      the  India   different  States  had      different  designations   for   the      various  categories   of   judicial      officers. It is not as if Assistant      District Judge  or a Joint district      Judge exist all over India. In fact      in the  Union Territory  of  Delhi,      after 1970 there was no officer who      was  designed   as  Joint  District      Judge or  Assistant District  Judge      whereas in  some other parts of the      country,  where   there  did  exist      Joint District  Judge or  Assistant      District Judge,  there was probably      no officer  with the designation of      addl.  District   Judge.  To   give      another    example,    the    Chief      Presidency Magistrate in Bombay was      not  subordinate  to  the  District      Judge but  was directly subordinate      to the  High Court.  The equivalent      of the Chief Presidency Magistrate,      in other  parts  of  the  State  of      Maharashtra,   in    its    various      districts  are   known  as  Session      Judges. As  we read  Article 236(a)      it is  only those judicial officers      who had  the designations mentioned      in the  said Article  who could  be      regarded  as  District  Judges.  Of      course this  did  not  prevent  the      Government from  upgrading any post      to that of a District Judge or to a      Higher Judicial Service, as we done      in the  present case when the posts      of  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate      and   Addl.    Chief   Metropolitan      Magistrate were upgraded."      "The  post  of  Senior  Subordinate      Judge is  not mentioned  in Article      236(a). It  is not  possible for us      to regard  or  treat  the  post  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

    Senior Subordinate  Judge as  being      the same  as the  post of Assistant      District  Judge.   Similarly,  even      though the  post of the Judge Small      Cause Court  under  the  Provincial      Small   Cause    Courts   Act    is      subordinate  to   the  High  Court,      nevertheless  the   post  of  Chief      Judge  of   a  Small   Cause  Court      exists, by  designation, under  the      Presidency Small  Cause Courts  Act      and not  under the Provincial Cause      Act and  not under  the  Provincial      Cause Courts  Act. Therefore,  when      in Article 236(a) reference is made      to  Chief   Judge  of  Small  Cause      Court, it  must refer to a judicial      officer holding  the post  having a      designation of Chief Judge of Small      Cause Court  and this  was only  in      the Presidency towns.      As we  have already  noted, it  has      been contended  by  the  petitioner      that the  principle behind  Article      236(a) should  be  extended  and  a      Senior Subordinate  Judge should be      regarded  as   Assistant   District      Judge and  the  Judge  Small  Cause      Court should  be regarded  as Chief      Judge,  Small   Cause  Court.   The      extension of  a principle  may be a      good   reason for the Government to      take an  administrative decision to      upgrade a  post and place it in the      High Judicial  Service.  Judicially      however, it  is not possible for us      to   interpret    the   expressions      "Assistant  District   Judge"   and      Chief Judge  Small Cause  Court" it      mean Senior  Subordinate  Judge  or      Judge Small  Cause Court. In effect      what  the   petitioner  wants  this      Court  to   do  is   to  deem   the      Assistant District  Judge  to  mean      Senior Subordinate  Judge and Chief      Judge, Small  Cause  Court.  It  is      indeed authoritatively  settled  by      the Supreme  Court in  the case  of      Union  of   India   vs.   Tej   Ram      Parashramji Bombhate  (AIR 1992  SC      570) that  the Court  or a Tribunal      has  no   power   to   compel   the      Government  to  change  its  policy      involving expenditure and to direct      the creation  of any post. What the      petitioner, in  effect, wants  this      Court to  do is  to  issue  a  writ      directing the  creating of  post in      the Delhi  Higher Judicial Service.      Such a  direction  cannot,  in  our      opinion. be a given."      Ultimately the High Court dismissed that Writ Petition. The present appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court against the above conclusions of the High Court.      The appellant  appearing in  person reiterated the same

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

contentions. In  addition to  that, he  also brought  to our notice certain  provision in  the rules  framed by  the High Court under  Section 35  (3) of  the Punjab High Court’s Act for Subordinate Services attached to Civil Courts other than High Court.      As regards  the point  based on  Section 39(3)  of  the Punjab Court  Act, while agreeing with the view expressed by the High  Court, we  would like  to point  out that the same principle has  already been  laid down by this Court In M.B. Majumdar vs. union of India (1990 (4) SCC 501). In that case a three  Judge Bench of this Court was considering the issue raised by  one of  the Members  (Administrative  Member)  of Central Administrative  Tribunal, claiming  equal status  in all respects  with Judicial  Member of  the  same  Tribunal. Rejecting a claim, this Court held as follows:-      "During the  course of  hearing, it      was   pointed    out   that    mere      substitution of  a different  forum      for adjudication  of a dispute does      not result in conferring on the new      forum the status of the substituted      forum for  purposes other  than the      jurisdiction    and     power    to      adjudicate  that   dispute   unless      their status to otherwise equal. To      illustrate,  Section   115  CPC  by      amendment in  some States  empowers      the District  Courts instead of the      High  Court   to  decide  revisions      thereunder,  but   that  does   not      equate the  District Court with the      High Court.  No attempt was made on      behalf of  the petitioner to answer      this." (Emphasis supplied).      Applying the  above principle to the facts of this case also, it  can be  said that merely because by delegation for administrative convenience, certain limited appellate powers are delegated  to the  Senior Sub-Judge, that post cannot be equated to the post of District Judge or Additional District Judge.      The rules  framed by High Court under Section 35 (3) of the Punjab  Court Act  only enable  the Senior  Sub Judge to appoint in  the first  instance menials in his own Court and the Courts of Other Sub Judges in the same District. Rule IX of the Rules reads as follows:-      "IX Punishment :- (1) The following      penalties   may    for   good   and      sufficient reasons  be imposed upon      members of the ministerial staff:-      (i) Censure.      (ii)  Fine   of   an   amount   not      exceeding one  month’s  salary  for      misconduct  or   neglect   in   the      performance of duties.      (iii)  Recovery  from  pay  of  the      whole or part of any pecuniary loss      caused to  Government by negligence      or breach of orders,      (iv) withholding  of increments  or      promotion including  stoppage at an      efficiency bar,      (v) Reduction  to a  lower post  or      time scale or to a lower state in a      time scale,      (vi) Suspension,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

    (vii) Removal, and      (viii) Dismissal      (2) (a)  Any of the above penalties      may be  inflicted by  the  District      Judge, on  the ministerial officers      of  his  own  court  or  any  court      subordinate to  him  other  than  a      court of  small Causes,  and on the      menials of his own Court.      (b)   The Judge of a Court of Small      Causes may inflict any of the above      the penalties  on  the  ministerial      officers menials of his own Court.      (c) The  District Judge  may,  with      the previous  sanction of  the High      Court, delegate  to any Subordinate      Judge   the    power   to   inflict      penalties given in clause (a) to be      exercised by  the subordinate Judge      in any  specified  portion  of  the      district subject  to the control of      the District Court.      Note:-  This  delegation  has  been      made to  the Senior  Sub-Judge, 1st      Class, in  each district  in regard      to       the        process-serving      establishment of  all courts in the      district   except   that   of   the      District  Judge’s  Court  and  ‘the      Court  of   Judge,  Small   Causes,      Lahore Amristar and Delhi.      (d) Any Subordinate Judge may fine,      in  an  amount  not  exceeding  one      month’s  salary,   any  ministerial      officer  of   his  own   Court  for      misconduct  or   neglect   in   the      performance of his duties.      (e) The  senior  Subordinate  Judge      may  inflict   any  of   the  above      penalties on  menials  of  his  own      court  or   the  courts   of  other      Subordinate  Judges   in  the  same      district".      Even the above powers given by Delegation to the Senior Sub Judge  will not  equate/elevate him  to that of District Judge or Addl. District Judge in the light of ruling of this Court in Majumdar’s case (supra).      As far as the contention based on Article 236(a) of the Constitution  of   India  is  concerned,  here  again  while agreeing with  the view  expressed by  the High Court as set out above,  we would like to recall the observations of this Court   in All  India Judges’ Association vs. Union of India and Ors.  (AIR 1992  Sc 165).  While  dealing  with  Article 236(a) of  Constitution of  India, this  Court  observed  as follows:-      "13.  If   reference  is   made  to      Article 236 of the Constitution, it      would   be    noticed   that    the      expression  "District   Judge"  has      been defined  to include Judge of a      City   Civil    Court.   Additional      District  Judge,   Joint   District      Judge, Assistance  District  Judge,      Chief Judge of a Small Cause Court.      Chief    Presidency     Magistrate,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

    Additional     Chief     presidency      Magistrate,     Sessions     Judge,      Additional   Sessions   Judge   and      Assistant   Session   Judge.   This      definition in  Article  236  covers      the higher  section  of  the  State      Judicial Service  both in the civil      and criminal  sides, The definition      is   only    inclusive    and    in      implementing the recommendations of      the Law  Commission to simplify the      designations  by  saying  that  the      hierarchy of  subordinate  judicial      officers would be District Judge or      Additional  District  Judge,  below      him Civil  Judges (Senior Division)      and below  him Civil  Judge (Junior      division) does  not go  against the      constitutional scheme  nor does  it      require   an   amendment   of   the      constitution. If  there be any laws      operating in  the  States,  perhaps      the   same    may   have    to   be      appropriately modified  or  altered      if the  uniformity  recommended  by      the Law Commission has to work out.      14. We  are inclined  to adopt  the      view of  the Law Commission. On the      civil  side,   the  State  Judicial      Service,   therefore,   should   be      classified    as     District    or      Additional  District  Judge,  Civil      Judge (senior  division) and  Civil      Judge (Junior  divisions).  On  the      criminal side,  there should  be  a      Sessions   Judge    or   Additional      Sessions Judge  and below him there      should  be   the   Chief   Judicial      Magistrate and Magistrates provided      for  in   the  Code   of   Criminal      Procedure. Appropriate  adjustment,      if any,  may be  made  of  existing      posts    by     indicating    their      equivalence  with   any  of   these      categories. The process of bringing      about such uniformity would require      some   item    and   perhaps   some      monitoring.  We   direct  that  the      Ministry of  Law and Justice of the      Union Government would carry on the      monitoring  activity  and  all  the      States and  Union Territories would      follow the  pattern indicated above      by March 31, 1993."      Article 236(a) reads as follows:-      "(a)   the   expression   ‘district      judge’ includes  judge  of  a  city      civil  court,  additional  district      judge,   joint    district   judge,      assistant  district   judge,  chief      judge of a small cause court. Chief      presidency  magistrate,  additional      Chief    presidency     magistrate,      sessions judge, additional Sessions      judge   and    assistant   Sessions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

    judge;"      There is no express mention is Article 236(a) about the Senior Subordinate  Judge like  the expressions  inter  alia included therein,  namely ‘Chief  Presidency Magistrate’ and ‘Additional Chief  Presidency Magistrate’.  May  be  in  the event  the  Delhi  Administration  decides  to  upgrade  and include the  post of  Senior Sub-Judge  in the  Delhi Higher Judicial  Service,  the  legal  contentions  raised  by  the appellant would  justify such upgradation and beyond that it will not  help the  appellant to  pray the  Court to issue a direction to  the Administrative  to upgrade and include the post  of  Senior  Subordinate  Judge  in  the  Delhi  Higher Judicial Service. Normally the court will not interfere with the Administrative  Policy  of  the  Government.  When  such policy violates  some provisions of the Constitution such as Article 14, the court will step in to set right. On facts we are unable  to hold  that such  a contingency  has arisen in this case warranting interference.      Though the  appellant in person ably presented his case by elaborately  arguing the  matter,  we  are  not  able  to persuade ourselves  to take  a different  view from  the one taken by  the  High  Court.  The  appeal  fails  and  it  is accordingly dismissed. No costs.