2010 (3) TMI 1291 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement of the petitioner to enhanced salary based on government orders and Bar Council resolutions.
2. Interpretation of Resolution No. 106/95 regarding the pay scale of the Secretary.
3. Authority of the Bar Council to fix and revise pay scales.
4. Applicability of government pay revisions to the Bar Council staff.
5. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Enhanced Salary:

The central issue was whether the petitioner, a former Secretary of the Bar Council, was entitled to an enhanced salary based on government orders and resolutions by the Bar Council. The petitioner argued that according to Resolution No. 106/95, the Secretary's pay scale was to be equivalent to that of a District Judge, with allowances applicable "from time to time." The petitioner claimed arrears based on a government order revising judicial officers' pay scales, asserting that the Bar Council's resolution entitled him to similar revisions.

2. Interpretation of Resolution No. 106/95:

The interpretation of Resolution No. 106/95 was crucial. The learned Single Judge held that the phrase "from time to time" applied to both allowances and the pay scale, entitling the petitioner to revisions in line with District Judges. However, the appellate court disagreed, concluding that the resolution only fixed the pay scale at the time and did not imply automatic future revisions. The court emphasized that any pay scale revision required a specific decision by the Bar Council.

3. Authority of the Bar Council:

The Bar Council's authority to determine pay scales was underscored, with reference to the Advocates Act and Bar Council of Kerala Rules. The court noted that the Bar Council had absolute power to fix and revise the pay scale of its Secretary, and any government pay revisions would not apply automatically unless adopted by the Bar Council. This authority was reaffirmed by the appellate court, which found no statutory or automatic entitlement for the petitioner to claim revised pay scales.

4. Applicability of Government Pay Revisions:

The court examined whether government pay revisions for judicial officers applied to the Bar Council staff. The appellate court concluded that such revisions would only apply if specifically adopted by the Bar Council. It was noted that the Bar Council had previously granted interim reliefs based on a government order, but this did not create an automatic entitlement for future revisions without explicit adoption by the Bar Council.

5. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:

The maintainability of the writ petition was challenged on the grounds that it sought personal benefits without statutory backing. The appellate court, however, found the petition maintainable as it was based on a resolution adopted by the Bar Council, which constituted a statutory right. The court thus proceeded to examine the merits of the case.

Conclusion:

The appellate court ultimately set aside the learned Single Judge's judgment, dismissing the writ petition. It held that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed benefits as there was no automatic entitlement to revised pay scales without a specific resolution by the Bar Council. The court emphasized the Bar Council's authority to decide pay scales and found no illegality in its decision to reject the petitioner's claims. However, a settlement was reached to pay the petitioner 50% of the claimed amount, acknowledging his lengthy service, which was agreed upon by both parties.