High Court Employees Association, & Ors. vs The State of Tripura, represented by the Chief Secretary in the Law Department, Government of Tripura, & Ors.

This intra-court appeal, directed against the judgment and order dated 11.08.2016, passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.71 of 2015, has been taken up for final disposal at the order stage itself with the consent of learned counsel of both side.

Heard learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for the appellant/writ petitioners(hereinafter mentioned as petitioners) and learned Advocate General, Mr. B.C. Das, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. J. Majumder for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and learned counsel, Ms. P. Dhar for respondent No.2.

The petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition[WP(C) No.71 of 2015] under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- "i. Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, calling for the records, lying with the respondents, for rendering substantive and conscionable justice to the petitioners;

ii. Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for mandating/directing them, to fix the pay & other benefits, of the members of the petitioner No.1, at par with the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Tripura in conformity with the Judgment & Orders dated 15.07.2008 & 07.10.2009, passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, in IA Nos. 71A, 135-138, 142 & 226, in connection with W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989, following the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, with effect from 01.04.2003, and thereupon, grant the arrears of pay & allowances, to the members of the petitioner No.1, with effect from 01.04.2003, as granted to the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Tripura;

iii. Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for mandating/directing them, to grant the benefits, to the members of the petitioner No.1, in tune with the recommendations made, as extracted in the Communication dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-P9 supra);"

The claim of the petitioners was based on the doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work". They, inter alia, contended that the Supreme Court in All India Judges'' Association v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 165[WP(C) No.1022 of 1989], following the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission, in subsequent Interlocutory Applications Nos.71(A), 135-138, 142 and 226, in the orders dated 15.07.2008 and 07.10.2009, issued directions to grant certain benefits to the employees of the sub-ordinate judiciary. The case of the petitioners was that they were similarly situated and performing the same nature of duties, rather with better qualifications and responsibilities, whereas they were deprived of the same benefit which was afforded to the similarly situated employees of the sub-ordinate judiciary.

The learned Single Judge by impugned judgment dated 11.08.2016 was pleased to give the following directions:- "36. As per Justice Shetty Commission''s recommendation, the said advance increment was granted w.e.f. 01.04.2003 on the upgraded pay scale for the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary. That increment has merged with the pay scale as extended to the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary w.e.f. 01.01.2006. No such upgraded pay scales either have been claimed by the petitioners or no such pay scales can be granted in their favour. The employees/officers of the High Court of Tripura is entitled to 1(one) advance increment, equal to the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary w.e.f. 01.04.2003 notionally till 31.12.2014, the preceding year of filing the writ petition. The respondents No.2, 4 and 5, as corollary to the above direction, are further directed to grant, sanction and release necessary fund to meet the contingent requirement within a period of 3(three) months from today to the High Court of Tripura for implementation of this direction.

Before parting with the records, it is made clear that the above decision has been arrived at on the assumed premises that the respondents No.2, 4 and 5 are not inclined to extend the benefit of one advance increment in favour of the employees/officers of the High Court of Tripura.

In the result, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs."

The respondents to the writ petition did not challenge the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioners felt aggrieved only in respect of the directions of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the benefit what has been allowed should not have been made notional from 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2014. It is apparent that the employees of the sub-ordinate judiciary got the benefit of one advance increment w.e.f. 01.04.2003. While the petitioners were held to be similarly situated, if not in better position, they are similarly entitled to the benefits on the principles of "Equal Pay For Equal Work" and since the State Government pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court granted the benefits to the employees of the sub-ordinate judiciary w.e.f. 01.04.2003, in our considered opinion, the same should be made available to the employees of High Court also on the same standard.

We, therefore, interfere to that extent in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct that the benefits allowed in the writ petition granting one advance increment to the employees of the High Court, i.e. the petitioners should be given w.e.f. 01.04.2003. The arrears shall be paid within 180 days from today. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

Parties to bear their own costs.