Shakir Ahmed And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

With consent of the parties, writ petitions have been heard finally and are decided by this common order as the facts as well as legal issue in both the writ petitions are common.

The petitioners are permanent and substantive employees of Rajasthan High Court. They are paid salary in the pay scale of the post of Administrative Officer Judicial. The State of Rajasthan issued a Notification on 01.05.2013 to amend the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002. Sub-rule (1) and (2) were inserted in Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002 to provide pay of staff attached to the High Court to be not less than the staff of the same cadre attached to the Sub-ordinate Courts.

The petitioners were promoted to the post of Administrative Officer Judicial. To find out the equivalent cadre post in the Subordinate Courts, a Committee was constituted by the Rajasthan High Court. It identified the equivalent post in Subordinate Courts. It is of Senior Munsarim. The report of the Committee was accepted by the High Court. In view of amended provision of Rule 21 by the amendment Rules of 2011, the petitioners became entitled for the salary at par to the equivalent post in the Subordinate Courts. The High Court made recommendation to upgrade pay scale and salary of the petitioners but no action in compliance to the recommendation of the High Court has been taken by the State for the post of Administrative Officer Judicial while it was accepted for five other posts, where also, equivalent cadre posts in the Subordinate Courts were identified by the Committee.

In view of the above, State Government has implemented recommendation of the High Court in part. Out of seven posts identified by the Committee, pay of five posts has been upgraded leaving two, which includes the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial). The reference of Annexure 5 and 7 along with the writ petition has been given to support the arguments.

Learned counsel appearing for the High Court has not disputed the facts narrated above, rather, he has supported case of the petitioners. It is admitted that after recommendation of the Committee, which identified the equivalent post, it was sent to the State Government to upgrade the pay scale of post of Administrative Officer (Judicial) apart from six other posts. The pay of five posts has been upgraded in compliance of Rule 21 (1) and (2), as amended, leaving post of Administrative Officer (Judicial) and one more post. The letters at Annexures 5 and 7 are the recommendation in favour of petitioners apart from others.

Learned counsel appearing for the State Government could not give reasons for not carrying out the recommendation of the High Court to bring petitioners'pay at par with their counter parts in the Sub-ordinate Courts. It is stated that the matter is still under consideration with the State Government.

We have considered rival submissions of the parties.

It is a case where an amendment was made by the State Government in the Rules of 2002 to bring a provision to allow the pay scale to the staff of the High Court at par with their counter parts in Subordinate Courts. The equivalent posts were identified by the Committee constituted by the High Court. It is quite surprising that despite identification of equivalent posts and recommendation of the High Court to allow higher pay/ pay scale to Administrative Officer Judicial, it has not been carried out by the State Government. It is while accepting it for five other posts.

We do not find any justification to keep the matter pending when the benefit claimed by the petitioners is flowing from the amended Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002.

Accordingly, we allow the writ petitions. A direction is given to the State Government to accept the recommendation of Committee/ High Court and, accordingly, to allow the pay to the petitioners equivalent to the pay of Senior Munsarim. The petitioners would be entitled to the consequential benefits. The compliance of this order would be made within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the writ are allowed.

Before parting with the judgment, we observe that the State Government should not keep the recommendation of the High Court pending unnecessarily, as has been done herein. The State Government should carry out the recommendation and directions of the High Court without delay. If it would have been done, present litigation could have been avoided.

The writ petitions had to be filed by the petitioners due to inaction on the part of the State Government despite recommendation of the High Court after amendment in the Rules of 2002.