AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.K. Vyas, J.
The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant- State of Rajasthan under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules challenging the
validity of judgment dated 01.02.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.2/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
petition filed by the writ-petitioner- Rajasthan Judicial Employees Association and directed the State Government to consider the report of the
Committee with utmost priority and decide the same with objectively and implement the same as per the observations made above with respect to
even an anomaly which may have arisen for whatever reason during the recommendations by the High Court Committee and duly approved by the
Full Court, and also restore parity in the pay scale and remove the anomaly keeping in mind the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra & Ors. as well as All India Judge’s Association within four months.Â
 After hearing the learned Addl. Advocate General, it emerges from the facts that in pursuance of directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in All India Judge’s Association Vs. UOI & Ors., in W.P. (Civil) No.1022/1989, Justice Shetty was appointed to inquire about the service
conditions of the staff members of the subordinate courts and to suggest ways to improve it. Admittedly after providing opportunity of being heard
to the representatives of various associations, High Court and State Government/UTs were suggested measures for effective administration of courts
as also made recommendations for grant of various allowances, pay scales, other benefits etc. to the employee of subordinate courts.
The said report of Shetty Commission was perused by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and while deciding various applications filed in the case of All
India Judge’s Association (supra), following order dated was passed on 07.10.2009, which reads as under: -
 “In view of these circumstances, we direct that hereafter these matters be considered by the respective High Courts of the States/UTs. We
direct that:
(i) The High Courts, on judicial/administrative side, will ensure implementation of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission within a reasonable
period of one year. The High Court shall permit writ petitions or applications that may be filed by the individual or staff association representing the
various members of the staff.
 (ii) The High Courts shall also see that the recommendations are implemented w.e.f. 1.4.2003.
 (iii) There shall be benefit of one advance increment on the existing pay-scale instead of initial pay-scale. In many of the States, the same benefit
has not been given to the members of the staff, the High Court should also see that these recommendations are implemented.
(iv) In some of the States based on various other pay commissions Reports, benefits had been given to the members of the staff, these benefits, if any,
given shall be in addition to the recommendations given by the Shetty Commission. In any case, if the members of the staff association/subordinate
staff getting higher benefits under any of the recommendations of the pay commission/Government Orders, they shall be permitted to avail those
benefits.
Office is directed to send back all the records, if any, to the respective High Courts. A copy of the consolidated Report of the Shetty Commission may
also be sent to the respective High Courts.
A copy of the consolidated Report of the Shetty Commission may also be sent to the respective High Courts/UTs.â€Â
 Admittedly, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the State Government and all the States and High Court, were bound to implement the
above directions but directions were not implemented, the petitioner Association, submitted a representation before the Registrar General, High Court
on 26.11.2009 requesting therein that all the 19 classified recommendations of Shetty Commission be carried out and necessary amendments be made
in the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Establishment Rules, 1986 and other rules wherever the said amendment was required.Â
 Upon representation, the High Court constituted a Committee comprising of two judges of High Court for consideration and implementation of the
recommendations made by the Shetty Commission with regard to scales, conditions of service etc. of the staff of subordinate courts. The Committee
after considering all the aspect of the matter made recommendations in following manner:Â
 “After giving anxious and thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that all recommendations including creations of posts of Shestridhars in
each court must be implemented. As soon as posts/cadres recommended by Shetty Commission are created, necessary rules regarding filling up of
those posts, duties and other essentially matters will be framed.â€
 The above report of the Committee with regard to various recommendations and amendment in the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Staff
Rules, was approved by the Full Court and forwarded to the State Government through Registrar of Rajasthan High Court, vide letter dated
01.09.2015, but the said recommendations were not implemented in its true spirit, therefore, the petitioner- Association preferred writ petition and said
writ petition was finally heard by the learned Single Judge and decided vide impugned judgment dated 01.02.2018.Â
 The learned Single Judge after considering the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission and recommendations by the Full Court gave
directions to the State Government to consider the report of the Committee with utmost priority and decide the same with objectivity and implement
the same as per the observations made with respect to anomaly which may have arisen for whatever reason during the recommendation by the High
Court Committee, duly approved by the Full Court.Â
 In our opinion, the State Government is under obligation to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also consider the prayer
of the respondent- Association objectively, which has also been approved by the Full Court and in the light of observations made by the learned Single
Judge in the judgment under challenge.
 Learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. P.R. Singh, submitted that the impugned order dated 01.02.2018 is erroneous because the learned Single
Judge emphasized upon the implementation of the suggestions made by the Committee constituted by the High Court, whereas the Hon’ble Apex
Court simply directed the State Government to implement the recommendations made by Shetty Commission. Further, the learned Single Judge did not
consider the important aspect of the matter that whatever recommendation could be implement, the State Government without there being any excuse
implemented the same, therefore, whatever adjudication has been made by the learned Single Judge, is not in consonance with law. No further
arguments were advanced by the learned Addl. Advocate General.
 After hearing learned Addl. Advocate General, and perusing the grounds taken in the appeal, we have perused the judgment of Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.B. Vora reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150, in which following observations were made by Hon’ble
Supreme Court:Â
 “Independence of the High Court is an essential feature for working of the democratic form of the Government in the country. An absolute
control, therefore, have been vested in the High Court over its staff which would be free from interference from the Government subject of course to
the limitations imposed by the said provision. There cannot be, however, any doubt whatsoever that while exercising such a power the Chief Justice of
the High Court would only be bound by the limitation contained in Clause 2 of the Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the proviso appended
thereto. Approval of the President/Governor of the State is, thus, required to be obtained in relation to the Rules containing provisions as regard, salary,
allowances, leave or promotion. It is rite that such approval should ordinarily be granted as a matter of course.
Decisions of this Court, as discussed hereinbefore, in no unmistakable terms suggest that it is the primary duty of the Union of India or the concerned
State normally to accept the suggestion made by a holder of a high office like a Chief Justice of a High Court and differ with his recommendations
only in exceptional cases. The reason for differing with the opinion of the holder of such high office must be cogent and sufficient. Even in case of
such difference of opinion, the authorities must discuss amongst themselves and try to iron out the differences. The appellant unfortunately did not
perform its own duties.â€
 After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and in the light of aforesaid judgment, we are of the opinion that it is the duty
of the State Government to respect the adjudication made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, so also, recommendations made by the Full Court in
administrative side, which is based upon recommendations of Shetty Commission. There is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for
the appellant that only directions is given by Apex Court to the State Government to implement the recommendations made by Shetty Commission. In
our opinion, if any anomaly is in existence with regard to benefits which are required to be extended to the employees of the subordinate judiciary, then
there is jurisdiction left with the High Court administration to remove those anomaly, if any in existence.Â
 Admittedly, the Committee was constituted for the said purpose and thereafter the matter was placed before the Full Court for consideration, which
approved the same, and the learned Single Judge while considering each and every aspect of the matter finally decided the writ petition and gave
directions to the State Government to consider the report of the Committee with utmost priority and to decide the same with objectivity and implement
the same as per observations made in the judgment.Â
            There is no substance in this appeal requiring any interference, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.Â