# P.S./P.A. Brotherhood High Court & another v. State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39525
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/p-s-p-a-brotherhood-high-court-another-v-state-of-u-p-another-39525
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

46. It is after sufficient argument that the
court had granted and issued a complete stay
order with regard to auction to mining rights.
The stay order therefore will cease with the
writ petition being disposed of but the State
Government shall take decision at the earliest
convenience so that the policy decision
behind Rule 9-A and the decision which is
taken with regard to the Mineral in the State
as envisaged through the Mineral Policy 1998
are combined for all round development of the
State of Uttar Pradesh.

47. During the course of argument it was
pointed out that whether or not Rule 9-A is
intravires has been subject matter of a
reference by a Division Bench in the
Lucknow Bench and a Full Bench has been
constituted and perhaps arguments have been
heard. Be that as it may, in the instant case the
vires etc. was never touched by either side.
That apart, this Court has already expressed in
writ petition No.35895 of 1999 relying upon
the decision of another Division Bench in case
reported in 1997 2 A.W.C. page 618 that the
aforesaid rule 9-A is well protected by the
Constitution provision and is intravires.

48. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
the writ petitions partly succeed. They are
disposed of with the direction that each one of
the petitioner's claim shall be adjudged by the
official under the M.M.C. Rules in accordance
with the direction which may be issued by the
State Government in pursuance of this
judgement which preferably may be issued
within a period of 2 months from today. For
the reasons aforesaid the parties will bear their
own costs.

49. Before parting with the case the court
places on record appreciation for the sincere
assistance which came through the learned
counsel for the petitioners in deciding these
bunch of writ petitions and also for Shri
Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel who
argued the matter brilliantly.
Petition disposed of.
----------

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6+$ 5$=$ -
7+( +21·%/( 6+$ 5$=$ -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

3ULYDWH
6HFUHWDULHV3HUVRQDO
$VVLVWDQWV
%URWKHUKRRG +LJK &RXUW WKURXJK LWV 9LFH
3UHVLGHQW 6UL .. %DQHUML
DQG DQRWKHU
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK -XGLFLDO 6HFUHWDU\

/5
*RYW
RI
83
9LGKDQ
%KDZDQ
/XFNQRZDQG DQRWKHU
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL $VKRN .XPDU
6KUL $VKRN %KXVKDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 6XQLO $PEDZDQL

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 7HOHSKRQH
IDFLOLW\3ULYDWH
6HFUHWDULHV

3HUVRQDO
$VVLVWDQW WR +RQ¶EOH -XGJH RI 'HOKL +LJK
&RXUW
DOUHDG\
JHWWLQJ
WKLV
IDFLOLW\
UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ RI WKH &KLHI -XVWLFHFDQQRW
EH OLJKWO\ EUXVK DVLGHGLUHFWLRQ LVVXHG WR
LQVWDOO
WKH
WHOHSKRQH
FRQQHFWLRQ
DW
WKH
UHVLGHQFH
RI
WKH
3ULYDWH
6HFUHWDULHV
E\
IRUWKZLWK *RYHUQPHQW WR JUDQW QHFHVVDU\
IXQGV ZLWKLQ WKH SHULRG RI VL[ ZHHNV
7KH VWDWXV RI WKH -XGJHV RI WKLV &RXUW LV
PXFK DERYH WKH VWDWXV RI WKH 6HFUHWDULHV WR
WKH 6WDWH *RYHUQPHQW ,W LV HYHQ KLJKHU LQ
FRPSDULVRQ WR WKH 6HFUHWDULHV WR WKH &HQWUDO
*RYHUQPHQW 7KHUH H[LVWHG QR UHDVRQ DV WR
ZK\ WKH 3ULYDWH 6HFUHWDULHV DWWDFKHG WR WKH
-XGJHV RI WKLV &RXUW ZKR GLVFKDUJH WKHLU
GLIILFXOW GXWLHV XQGHU WKH XPEUHOOD RI WKH
&KLHI -XVWLFH EH GHQLHG D IDFLOLW\ ZKLFK LV
DYDLODEOH WR WKHLU FRXQWHUSDUWV LQ WKH 83
6HFUHWDULDW
+HOG 3DUD

By the Court

1. "Separation of powers" amongst three
limbs of the State, the executive, the
2ALL] P.S./P.A. Brotherhood High Court & another V State of U.P. & another 37
 legislature and the judiciary in all hall
marks of the Constitution of India, which is
held to be "basic structure" of India. The
edifice of the Constitution is based on
"separation of powers". If the independence
of each limb of the State, in any way is
affected, there would be a break down of the
Constitution.

2. With this prelude, we have to examine
the case of the Private Secretaries of this
Court, who are drawing the pay scale of Class
I Officer, i.e.Rs.10,000-15,200/- and stakes
the claim in the present writ petition for being
provided the telephone connections at their
residence.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that in
the year 1988 the State Government decided
that the employees of the State Government
would be given the pay scale available to the
corresponding status employees under the
Central Government. In order to execute the
said decision an Equivalence Committee was
constituted by the State Government, which
submitted its report on 30.4.1989.As there
existed various normalise in the pay structure
and the State Government felt difficulties in
implementing its decision to equalize the pay
scale of the State employees with that of the
Central Government, an Anomaly Committee
was constituted, which submitted its report.
The State Government itself took a policy
decision "vide Adhyay 2 Adhikar Adesh" to
pay central pay scale to the staff of the
Allahabad High Court with the approval of
the Governor.

4. The Private Secretaries and Personal
Assistants Brotherhood filed a writ petition
bearing No.1408 of 1993 claiming pay parity
with the corresponding employees of the
Delhi High Court. The main thrust of the
petitioners of that writ petition was that their
case was covered by the decision of Delhi
High Court, rendered in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.289 of 1991 in re: A.K. Gulati and
another Vs. Union of India and others,
decided on 7.5.1991.

5. In A.K. Gulati (Supra), a Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court, while
allowing the writ petition, issued a writ in the
nature
of
mandamus
commanding
the
respondents to fix the salary of the petitioners
and other Private Secretaries, who are
working with the judges of the Delhi High
Court in the appropriate stage, in the pay scale
of Rs. 3000-4500 with effect from 1st
January, 1986. The salary of the petitioners
and other Private Secretaries should be fixed
within three months from that date and the
arrears, if any, should be paid to the
petitioners within one month thereafter.

6. In A.K. Gulati (Supra) the Delhi High
Court was of the view that there was a parity
of the pay scale between the Private
Secretaries of the Judges of the Court and the
Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the
Government of India and the Chief Secretary,
Delhi Administration. When the pay scale of
the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the
Government of India was revised, there was
no reason as to why similar upward revision
of the pay scale of the Private Secretaries
attached with the judges of the High Courts
should not be made because the salary of the
Judges of the High Court was the same to that
of Secretaries to the Government of India.
The Delhi High Court also expressed a view
that the status and allowances, which are
received by the Judges of the High Courts are
much above than those of the Secretaries to
the Government of India an addition thereto,
the work, which is performed by the Private
Secretaries to the Judges, is not less, and in
fact more onerous, arduous and confidential in
nature.

7. Special Leave Petition, which was filed
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, against
the decision of Delhi High Court, was
dismissed on 26.8.1991.
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

8. The Writ Petition bearing No.1408 of
1993 in re: Private Secretaries and Personal
Assistants Brotherhood Vs. State of U.P. and
another, was allowed on 21.12.1993 by a
Division Bench of this Court.

9. Special leave petition was filed before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the
judgement of the Division Bench of this
Courts which was dismissed.

10. It is really surprising that while
Private Secretaries working in U.P. Secretariat
have been provided with official telephone at
their residences, but that facility was denied to
the petitioners in spite of the fact that the
Chief Justice of this Court urged the State
Government for the same in the year 1989.

11.The
Chief
Justice,
before
recommending the case of the Private
Secretaries of this Court, was pleased to make
a query from the State Government as to
whether the official telephones were provided
at the residences of the Private Secretaries,
working in U.P. Secretariat or not and the
State Government informed the Court that
official telephones have been provided at the
residences of Private Secretaries, working in
the
U.P.
Secretariat.
Only
then
the
representations
made
by
the
Private
Secretaries dated 30.10.1989 and 27.2.1989
were recommended.

12. By means of the D.O. No.5550 DR(P)
dated April 30, 1990, Sri A. S. Tripathi, the
then Registrar of the High Court sent a letter
to the Judicial Secretary and L.R. to
Government of U.P., asking him to get Rs.
5,70,000/- sanctioned for installation of
telephone connections at the residences of
Private Secretaries.

13.
Installation
of
official
telephone
connections, at the residences of the Private
Secretaries, is not only to the advantage of the
Private Secretaries only, but it is for the
advantage of Judges as well, as it will be
easier for them to call their Private Secretaries
on telephone to come to their residences for
dictation of the judgements or other official
work. After the office hours are over, the
Judges feel difficulty in contacting their
Private Secretaries in discharge of their duties
and the work of the Court suffers.

Installation of telephone connections at the
residences of Private Secretaries will also add
to efficiency of the Judges in discharge of
their duties to dispense with justice.

14. It is really surprising that the Private
Secretary attached to the Registrar of this
Court, since long had been provided with
official telephone at his residence and the
High Court had been paying the bill from the
High Court fund, but the Private Secretaries
attached to the Judges, have not been
provided that facility.

15. Thirty four Private Secretaries of this
Court
themselves
have
got
telephones
installed at their residence in order to facilitate
convenience to the Judges for the purpose of
carrying out the instructions of Judges on
telephone and complied with their orders and
instructions.

16. The Charges for installation of
telephone connections, which the thirty four
Private Secretaries have incurred, may not be
paid either by the High Court or by the State
Government. The maximum number of calls,
which the Private Secretaries can make, can
be regulated by the Chief Justice and the bill
can be paid by the High Court from the funds,
which may be made available to the High
Court
by
the
State
Government.
The
petitioners themselves stated in the writ
petition that although the S.T.D. facility
should be made available to them on payment
of charges.

17. In view of the submission, which the
petitioners have made, the expenses in
installation of the telephones connections at
2ALL] P.S./P.A. Brotherhood High Court & another V State of U.P. & another 39
the residence of the Private Secretaries, who
did not get the telephones installed at their
residences, has been reduced to a considerable
strength.

18. It was contended from the side of the
petitioners that the work which they perform
is not less in comparison to the Private
Secretaries to the Secretaries to the State
Government,
Central
Government
and
Registrar of this Court, but in fact the work of
the Private Secretaries of this Court are more
arduous and confidential in nature, but they
have been discriminated.

19. On 17.5.1999 a Division Bench of this
Court, considering the alleged discrimination
meted out to the petitioners, issued an interim
mandamus in the following words"

"We are prima facie in agreement with the
prayer of the petitioners. It is no doubt true
that the functioning of the Hon'ble Judges is
difficult
without
providing
telephone
connections to the Privcate Secretaries at
their residences from High Court funds, since
the Hon'ble Judges often have to contact their
Private Secretaries in connection with various
matters after Court hours and on holidays.

In the circumstances we issue an interim
mandamus to the respondents to provide
official telephone connections to the Private
Secretaries of the Hon'ble Judges of this
Court at their residences from the High Court
funds and to make regular payment of bills
thereof or show cause within six weeks. The
respondents may file counter affidavit within
six weeks."

20. It was urged that grant of telephone
facility at the expenses of the State Exchequer
involves financial implication. No Rule has
been framed by the Chief Justice of this Court
in exercise of the powers conferred under
Article 229 of the Constitution of India,
therefore, in absence of the same there was no
occasion for the grant of the approval upon
the same by the Governor of U.P. under
Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India,
hence the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on that ground alone.

21. It was also averred in the counter
affidavit that the petitioners have nowhere
pleaded in the writ petition that any expert
body or committee duly constituted in
accordance with law either by the State
Government or by the Chief Justice of this
Court has ever gone into the various aspects
of the matter, therefore, unless and until the
demand put forth by the petitioners was duly
considered by the expert committee or body
constituted in accordance with law, the writ
petition is not maintainable.

22. Reference has been made by the State
Government to an old Government Order
dated 18.12.1998, wherein it has been
provided that any officer, who is having the
pay scale of less than Rs.3700-5000 (revised
as Rs.12000-16500), like the petitioners in the
present case, who are having the pay scale of
Rs.3000-4500 (revised Rs.10000-15200) only,
are not entitled to the official telephone
facility
at
their
residence
except
in
exceptional, extraordinary and unavoidable
circumstances.

23. We fail to understand as to what
would be the more extreme and exceptional
case than the case of the petitioners. The
Private Secretaries in performance of their
duties to carry out the instructions of the
Judges of this Court, have to make a response
by informing them on several matters. Due to
non-availability of the official telephone
connections, not only their efficiency is
marred, but the cause of dispensation of
justice by the Judges also suffers. The
installation of telephone connections at the
residence of Private Secretaries shall be to the
advantage of the Judges also, which will help
the Judges to dispense with justice.
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
24. Furthermore, it has nowhere been
indicated in the counter affidavit as to what
were
the
extreme
and
exceptional
circumstances,
in
which
the
Private
Secretaries attached to the Ministers and the
Secretaries to the Government of India have
been provided official telephones. The Private
Secretaries
to
the
Secretaries
to
the
Government of U.P. have been provided the
facility of official telephone connections for
the purpose of administrative convenience and
efficiency.
Why
the
State
Government
appears to be more concern with the
convenience
of
the
Private
Secretaries
attached to the Secretaries to the State
Government and why that extent of concern
has not been shown towards the Private
Secretaries of the other limbs of the State, i.e.
judiciary, particularly when the expenditure
which the State Government will incur would
not be more than few lakhs of rupees. There is
no reason as to why the Private Secretary
attached to the Registrar should have the
facility of the official telephone connection,
but the Private Secretaries attached with the
Judges of this Court should have no such
facility. Denial of such facility, to the Private
Secretaries attached with the Judges of this
Court, is a clear cut case of discrimination,
which appears to be a writ at large.

25. It is really unfortunate that the
recommendation made by the Chief Justice of
this Court was lightly brush aside and ignored
by the State Government. The majesty of high
office, which the Chief Justice holds, cannot
be allowed to impair. It was expected from the
State Government that the recommendation of
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who happens to be
the highest functionary of the State on the
judicial side ought to have been respected and
given due weightage. But it was really
unfortunate that minimum courtesy, which
expected from the State Government to send
the reply to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, was not
shown. The State Government slept over, on
the recommendation of Hon'ble the Chief
Justice for about nine years, which compelled
the petitioners to approach this Court on
judicial side.

26. It is a matter of great concern that the
recommendation of the Chief Justice of the
High Court was not given due weightage and
utmost
consideration
by
the
State
Government.

27. It is true that the Governor under
Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India
cannot be compelled to grant approval to the
Rules framed by the Chief Justice relating to
salaries, allowances, leave or pension, but the
present matter does not relate to salaries,
allowances, leave or pension. It pertains only
to a facility, which is provided by the State
Government
to
the
Private
Secretaries
attached to the Secretaries to the Government
to U.P.

28. Before making a recommendation to
the State Government to provide the facility to
official telephone connections to the Private
Secretaries to the judges, the Chief Justice
inquired from the State Government as to
whether such a facility has been provided to
the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the
State Government. When the answer was in
affirmative, only then the Chief Justice of the
High Court, the highest dignitary of the third
limb of the State through its registrar made a
recommendation.
So
the
discrimination,
which was writ at large, in the case of the
Private Secretaries attached with the Judges of
this
Court
may
be
avoided,
but
the
recommendation
was
not
honoured
and
without indicating any reason the State
Government came forward with a lame
excuse of dearth of finances as told to this
Court by the Advocate General of the State
Government on 12.10.1999.

29. We take judicial notice of the fact that
the Ministers of the State Government as well
as the Chief Minister have been ordering for
the provisioning the fund to install statues and
memorials
in
the
name
of
erstwhile
2ALL] Kalu Ram V State of U.P. & another 41
 politicians, but the State Government has
been shirking in its responsibility to provide
few lakhs of rupees for providing official
telephone
connections
to
the
Private
Secretaries attached with the Judges of this
Court.

30. We are of the view that it was not at
all necessary for the Chief Justice to have
framed a Rule in that regard and send it for
the approval of the Governor as the matter did
not pertain to salary, allowances, leave or
pension. In the instant case approval of the
Governor was not at all necessary for the
simple reason that the matter pertains to
provision of a facility, which is being enjoyed
by the Private Secretaries attached with the
Secretaries of the Government of U.P. and
which
is
necessary
for
the
cause
of
dispensation of justice.

31. The status of the Judges of this Court
is much above the status of the Secretaries to
the State Government. It is even higher in
comparison to the Secretaries to the Central
Government. There existed no reason as to
why the Private Secretaries attached to the
Judges of this Court, who discharge their
difficult duties under the umbrella of the
Chief Justice, be denied a facility which is
available to their counter-parts in the U.P.
Secretariat.

32. In view of what has been indicated
herein above, the writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is
issued
commanding
the
respondents
to
immediately provide the official telephone
connections
to
the
Private
Secretaries,
attached to the Judges of this Court, at their
residences and the telephone bills be paid
from the High Court funds. The State
Government is directed to provide funds for
that purpose within a period of six weeks
from the date of production of a certified copy
of this order.

33. However, it is provided that the
expenses, which the Private Secretaries have
incurred
in
installation
of
telephone
connections be not paid from the High Court
funds, but their telephone bills will be paid by
the High Court. The Chief Justice of the High
Court may fix number of calls, which the
Private Secretaries will make. The S.T.D.
facility may be provided to the Private
Secretaries, but the charges of S.T.D. calls
may be paid by the Private Secretaries, if
Hon'ble the Chief Justice so desires.
Petition Allowed.
----------
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
.DOX 5DP
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH
RI
83
WKURXJK
6HFUHWDU\
5XUDO
(QJLQHHULQJ
6HUYLFHV
/XFNQRZ

DQRWKHU
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
'U +1 7ULSDWKL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 6HUYLFH
/DZ
WHUPLQDWLRQ
RUGHU
SDVVHG
RQ
WKH
JURXQG ZKLOH DW WKH WLPH RI JHWWLQJ WKH MRE
WKH GLSORPD FHUWLILFDWH ZDV SURGXFHG IURP D
ERG\ QRW UHFRJQLVHG HLWKHU E\ WKH 6WDWH RU
&HQWUDO *RYHUQPHQW DIWHU ODSV RI \HDUV
WKH YDOLGLW\ RI 'LSORPD &HUWLILFDWH FDQ QRW EH
H[DPLQHG WHUPLQDWLRQ RUGHU LOOHJDO
+HOG
,Q RXU RSLQLRQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU¶V
'LSORPD VKRXOG KDYH EHHQ FRQVLGHUHG DW WKH
WLPH RI DSSRLQWLQJ KLP
LQ WKH \HDU RU
ZLWKLQ D UHDVRQDEOH SHULRG WKHUHDIWHU EXW
WKLV PDWWHU FDQQRW EH H[DPLQHG DIWHU D JDS
RI RU \HDUV DV WKDW ZRXOG EH ZKROO\
DUELWUDU\
3DUD