1992 (7) TMI 352 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Equivalence of pay scales between Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) and Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS).
3. Validity of directions issued by the learned Single Judge regarding pay scales.
4. Comparison of duties and responsibilities between RHJS and RJS officers.
5. Applicability of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the context of pay scales.
6. Role of Pay Commissions and expert bodies in determining pay scales.
7. Issuance of writ of mandamus for legislative actions.
8. Impact of financial implications on judicial decisions regarding pay scales.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The appellant contended that the learned Single Judge transgressed the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by issuing directions to the Executive. It was argued that the High Court cannot legislate or issue directions to the Executive to enact specific rules. The judgment cited Supreme Court decisions in *Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of A.P.* and *State of Jammu & Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki*, emphasizing that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact a particular legislation or to the Executive to make rules.

2. Equivalence of pay scales between Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) and Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS):
The appellant argued that the pay scales granted to RHJS officers were governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989, and that the learned Single Judge's directions were arbitrary and unreasonable. The RHJS officers contended that their duties and responsibilities were more arduous and involved greater responsibilities than those of RJS officers, and hence, they deserved higher pay scales.

3. Validity of directions issued by the learned Single Judge regarding pay scales:
The learned Single Judge directed the grant of specific pay scales to RHJS officers, which the appellant contended was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The judgment clarified that the directions did not involve creating new pay scales but rather correcting the unjust and arbitrary state action of equating RHJS officers with RJS officers. The Court held that the grant of similar pay scales to RHJS (Ordinary scale) and RJS (Supertime scale) officers was unjust and arbitrary, and thus, the pay scale of Rs. 4500-5700 granted to the ordinary scale RHJS officers was quashed.

4. Comparison of duties and responsibilities between RHJS and RJS officers:
The judgment detailed the comparative duties and responsibilities of RHJS and RJS officers, noting that RHJS officers have broader jurisdiction and greater responsibilities. The Court emphasized that RHJS is a superior service to RJS, and historically, RHJS officers were granted higher pay scales than RJS officers. The Court found that treating RHJS officers as equals to RJS officers violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

5. Applicability of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the context of pay scales:
The Court reiterated that Article 14 is violated when unequals are treated as equals, and vice versa. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" was emphasized, and the Court held that RHJS officers, being in a superior service, deserved higher pay scales than RJS officers. The judgment referenced Supreme Court decisions supporting this principle, including *Mohd. Usman v. State of A.P.* and *Randhir Singh v. Union of India*.

6. Role of Pay Commissions and expert bodies in determining pay scales:
The appellant argued that the findings of expert bodies like Pay Commissions should not be interfered with by the Court. The judgment acknowledged this but noted that the Pay Commission's recommendations were not followed in granting pay scales to RHJS officers. The Court held that when state action is arbitrary and unjust, the Court has the right to interfere.

7. Issuance of writ of mandamus for legislative actions:
The Court clarified that it did not issue a mandamus to legislate new rules but rather corrected the arbitrary state action by directing the grant of existing pay scales. The judgment referenced decisions where courts issued directions affecting service conditions, such as *Purshottam Lal v. Union of India* and *Teerth Narain Mallick v. State of Bihar*.

8. Impact of financial implications on judicial decisions regarding pay scales:
The judgment noted that financial implications cannot justify the violation of constitutional provisions. The Court held that considerations of financial implications must be relegated to the background when Article 14 is violated. The principle of "higher pay for higher work" was upheld, and the Court directed the grant of appropriate pay scales to RHJS officers.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in part. The Court upheld the first two directions of the learned Single Judge regarding the grant of pay scales to RHJS officers but set aside the third direction concerning the grant of supertime scale to seven RHJS officers. The Court emphasized the superiority of RHJS over RJS and directed the State Government to grant appropriate pay scales to RHJS officers, ensuring compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution.