http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6252 of 1998

PETITIONER: Union of India                                           

RESPONDENT: Kishan K. Sharma & Ors.                  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/01/2004

BENCH: CJI & S.B.Sinha.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha,  J.

       How far and to what extent a writ of or in the nature  of mandamus should be issued directing the Union of India to  pay salary to the Officers of the High Court in a particular  scale of pay is the question involved in this  appeal which  arises out of a judgment and order dated 8th August, 1996  passed by the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 1174/94.

The respondents herein are Personal Assistants to the  Deputy Registrar of the High Court or Junior Stenographers.   It is not in dispute that the scales of pay of the officers  and employees of the High Court did not fall for  consideration by the Pay Commission appointed by the Central  Government.  The Delhi High Court, however, in the light of  the recommendations made by the 4th Pay Commission fixed  the scales of pay of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein at  Rs.1400/- to Rs.2300/- which was similar to those  payable  to the Personal Assistants of the Joint Secretaries.   

The President of India, however, on representations  made by the concerned employees of the Central Government  revised the scales of pay of the P.A. to the Deputy  Secretaries at Rs.1640/-  to Rs.2900/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 by  reason of Office memorandum dated 31st July, 1990.  The  respondents herein thereafter filed a representation before  the Chief Justice of the High Court who made his   recommendations therefor to the Government of India clearly  stating that keeping in view the fact that the posts of  Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar in Delhi High Court  carry the same scales of pay as prescribed for the posts of  Director and Deputy Secretary of the Government of India  respectively, the proposed upgraded  pay scales to the posts  of Personal Assistant to the Deputy Registrar and Junior  Stenographers should  be sanctioned.  No action was,  however, taken thereupon.   

The Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein thereafter filed a  writ petition inter alia contending that they stand on a  better footing than their counterparts in the Central  Government both as regard  nature of work as also the duties  performed by them which involve  high degree of efficiency  and integrity and responsibilities as compared to the duties  of Personal Assistant or Junior Stenographers attached to  the Joint Secretaries of the Government of India.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

appellant in its  counter affidavit filed before the High  Court, however, stated that the memorandum dated 31st July  1990 prescribing revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- was  applicable only to the Assistants and Stenographers working  in the Ministries/department.  It was further stated that  the Private Secretaries working in the High Court cannot  have any parity of scales of pay with Private Secretaries to  the Secretaries to the Government of India.  The High Court,  however, supported the stand of the writ petitioner- respondents.   

A Division bench of the High Court upon considering the  materials placed on records and having regard to the nature  of duties performed by the Personal Assistants and  Stenographers attached to the Joint Registrars vis-‘-vis  those who are attached to the Director or Deputy Secretaries  held that the respondents were entitled to the grant of pay  scale of  Rs.1640-60-2500-EB-75-2900/- observing :

"The mode of appointment for the post of  PA to Deputy Registrar and Junior  Stenographer is by direct recruitment on  the basis of written test and interview.   Minimum qualifications prescribed for  appointment to the post is graduate with  speed not less than 100 wpm in shorthand  and 40 wpm in typewriting.  The  qualification are more than what is  prescribed for Personal Assistants and  Grade ’C’ Stenographers in Government of  India for whom though the mode of  appointment is by direct recruitment on  the basis of written test and interview,  but minimum qualification is matriculate  with speed of not less than 100 wpm in  shorthand and 35 wpm in typewriting."

       Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Additional Solicitor  General, appearing for the Union of India, inter alia,  submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court  committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment  insofar as it failed to take into consideration that it on  its judicial side cannot issue a writ of or in the nature of  mandamus directing the Central Government and the  Respondents herein to grant the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/-  w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in favour of the respondents.  The learned  counsel would submit that having regard to the provisions  contained in Clause 2  of Article 229 of the Constitution of  India, the Chief Justice of the High Court may in his wisdom  fix the pay scale but therefor approval of the President of  India was  imperative.  

       Mr. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel, appearing on  behalf of the private respondents, on the other hand, would  at the outset draw our attention to the fact that the  impugned judgment has already been implemented by the  appellant.  The learned counsel pointed out that in this  case the writ petitioners were placed in the same scale of  pay as that of the Personal Assistants of the Director and/  Joint Secretaries and the Central Government had accepted  the recommendations made by the High Court in this behalf  and in that view of the matter having regard to the office  memorandum dated 31st July, 1990 the appellants should  have also accepted the recommendations of the High Court

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

when the scales of pay was revised in terms of a  Presidential order.  The learned counsel submitted that  although in a given case it may not be permissible for the  High Court to issue a writ of or in the nature of  mandamus  directing a statutory  authority to pass an order or direct  discharge the statutory function in a particular manner but  in this case such an order had to be passed as despite  recommendations made by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High  Court no order thereupon was passed for a long time.   

       The extent and scope of judicial review for the purpose  of issuance of writ of or in the nature of Mandamus for the  grant of scale has been considered by us in Union of India  Vs. S.B.Vohra and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2887 of 2001) which  is also being disposed of on this day.  

       Following the said decision, we are of the opinion,  although the High Court was not correct in issuing the  impugned directions but having regard to the fact that the  matter is an old one and the direction of the High Court has  already been acted upon, the impugned judgment need not be  interfered with.  The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. In  the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no  order as to costs.