Holding

A State is not bound to follow the rules or pay‑scale changes of another State; each High Court's rules must be examined independently, and the Chief Justice's recommendations, while deserving due consideration, are not automatically binding.

Summary

Senior Translators and Junior Translators of the Himachal Pradesh High Court sought redesignation and parity of pay with their counterparts in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, relying on a policy of adopting Punjab & Haryana pay scales. The Himachal High Court, following the Chief Justice's recommendation, ordered the State to approve the redesignation from 23‑Jan‑1975, but the Governor did not give approval, leading to a writ petition. The Supreme Court examined whether Himachal Pradesh is legally bound to follow the rules and pay scales of another State and whether the Chief Justice's recommendation is binding. It held that each High Court's rules must be examined independently; a State is not compelled to adopt another State's rules or every amendment thereto, though policy may permit it. The Court also emphasized that the State must give due consideration to the Chief Justice's recommendations but is not obligated to implement them automatically. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court's order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether Himachal Pradesh is bound to follow the Punjab & Haryana High Court rules and pay scales adopted by it.
Whether the Chief Justice's recommendation for redesignation/equation of posts must be implemented by the State Government.
Whether the respondents are entitled to parity in pay scales from 23‑Jan‑1975 or from 5‑Aug‑1980.
Whether a policy of adopting another State's rules creates a legal obligation.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 229, s. Article 231

Subjects

service lawredesignationpay parityhigh court rulesstate governmentchief justice recommendationconstitutional provisionsArticle 229Article 231employment conditions

Judgment

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH A
v.
SHRI P.D. ATTRI AND OTHERS

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) B
-,
>--
Service Law-Redesignation and parity of posts-Himachal Pradesh
High Court Officers and Servants (Salaries, Leave, Allowance and Pension)
Rules 1971-f'unjab and Haryana Establishment (Appointment and Condi-
tions of Service) Rules 1973-Adoption of rules of one State by another c
Stat~edesignation and equation of posts-Senior Translators and Junior
Translators of Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking parity in pay scales and
redesignation of posts with employees of Punjab and Haryana High
Court_;_policy and Practice of Himachal Pradesh High Court adopting pay
scales with Punjab and Haryana High Court, whether binds the State to follow D
rules made by the other State-Held, while a State' may adopt the pay scales
sanctioned for employees in another State from time to time, it is not bound
to so follow-Rules of each High Court have to be examined independently-
Recommendations of the Chief Justice of the High Court are, however, to be
given due deference and utmost consideration by State Government. E
Senior Translators and Junior Translators working in the Himachal
Pradesh High Court approached the High Court in a writ petition seeking
redesiguation as Revisers and Translators, and equation of their posts
with Superintendents Grade II and Assistants in the Himachal Pradesh
Cl Civil Secretariat with effect from 23.1.75. When relevant provisions of the F
,<
Punjab and Haryana Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of
Service) Rules 1973 (P&H Rules) were notified on 23.1.86 with effect from
· 25.9.85, redesignating and equating the posts, these posts were similarly
equated in the Himachal Pradesh High Court by the Chief Justice after
obtaining approval of the Governor by notification dated 17.6.87 with effect G
from 25;9.85. After the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
i..,
-"· in Sunder Sham Kapur v.Hon'ble Chief Justice, (1987) 4 SLR 460, the P&H
Rules were given effect to from 23.1.75 instead of 25.9.85. The respondents
represented on that basis to the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court, who recommended their case to the State Government for H
587
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.
A obtaining approval of the Governor. Since no approval was received from
the Governor, the respondents filed the writ petition.

It was conceded before the High Court that since as per policy and
practice, the State Government adopt~d the pay scales sanctioned for the
B officers and servants of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Chief
Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court had recommended redesig-
nation and equation of posts from 23.1.75, guided by the decision of the ,--
--<
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sunder Sham Kapur's case.

The State, in appeal before this Court, challenged the judgment of
C the High Court.

Sunder Sham Kapur having been reversed by this Court while
holding that the Revisors earlier designated as Translators would · be
entitled to revised pay scale from 5.8.80 and not from 23.1.75, it was
D submitted for the respondents that they would be satisfied if they were held
entitled to similar pay scale as provided to their counterparts in the
Punjab and Haryana High Court with effect from 5.8.80.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
E
Held : 1. Rules of each High Court have to be examined inde-
pendently. There cannot be any such law that Himachal Pradesh High
Court has to suo motu follow the same rules as applicable to the employees
working in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. One State is not bound
to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the other
F State or if it had adopted the sa'me rules and regulations, it is not bound
to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other
State. The State of Himachal Pradesh as per "policy and practice" had been
adopting the same pay scales for the employees of the High Court as
sanctioned from time to time for the employees of the Punjab and Haryana
G High Court, and it may even now follow to grant pay scales, but no law
commands it to do so. (591-H; 592-C]

Sunder Sham Kapur v. Hon'ble Chief Justice, (1987) 4 SLR 460 and
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh through its Registrar v. Sunder
H Sham Kapoor, (1997) 9 SCC 174, referred to.
STATEv. P.D.ATfRI [D.P. WADHWA,J.] 589

2. The fact remains that when the Chief Justice of the Himachal A
Pradesh High Court made recommendations to Governor to redesig-
nate/equate the posts, no decision was communicated, which led the
respondent to approach the High Court on its judicial side. Recommen-
dations of the Chief Justice of the High Court are to be given due deference
and utmost consideration by the State Government. The State Government
is to consider the recommendation and communicate a decision at an early
B
date. [593-C; 595-A]

Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India,
[1989] 4 SCC 187 and High Cowt of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh
Chand Paliwal, JT (1998) 2 SC 1, relied on. C
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2033 of
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.5.92 of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 43 of 1990. D

B. Dutta, N.K. Sharma for the Appellant.

A Mariarputham for M/s. Arputham, Arona & Co. for the Respon-
dents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. WADHWA, J. State of Himachal Pradesh in this appeal has
challenged the judgment dated May 21, 1992 of the Division Bench of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'High
Court') allowing the writ petition filed by certain categories of employees F
of the High Court seeking parity in pay scale from a particular date and
redesignation of their posts with the employees of the Punjab & Harya11a
High Court. High Court by the impugned judgment directed the State
Government "to accord and convey the approval for the redesignation and
equation of the posts of senior Translators and Junior Translators with G
Revisers and Translators and equate them with the posts of Superinten-
dents Grade-II and Assistants in the Hirnachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat
from 23.1.1975 within two months from today and on receiving this ap-
proval, the second respondent will take the consequential steps within one
month thereafter and grant such other and further reliefs to the petitioners H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A that may flow out of the same".

In corning to this decision, High Court was guided by the decision of
the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the Sunder Sham Kapur & Ors. v.
Hon'ble Chief Justice & Ors., (1987) 4 SLR 460. On the basis of this
judgment, Chief Justice Punjab & Haryana High Court had directed that
B the petitioners therein were entitled to the benefit of redesignation and
equation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators from
23.1.1975. It was conceded before the High Court that since as per policy
and practice, the State Government was adopting the pay-scales sanctioned
for the officers and servants of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and
C accordingly the Chief Justice of the High Court had similarly recom-
mended for the redesignation and equation of the posts in question from
23.1.1975. The aforesaid judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
in Sunder Sham Kapur's case (supra) has been reversed by this Court in
Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh through its Registrar v. Sunder
D Sham Kapoor & Ors., (1997) 9 SCC 174. This Court said that Revisors
earlier designated as Translators would be entitled to revised pay-scale
from 5.8.1980 as per the order dated 17.11.1987 and not from 23.1.1975. At
the beginning of arguments, it was submitted before us by the respondents
that they would be satisfied if this Court ordered that the respondents in
E the present case working in the High Court would be held entitled to
similar pay-scale as provided to their counterparts in the Punjab &
Haryana High Court w.e.f. 5.8.1980. We do not, however, think it is as
simple as that.

The respondents before us are employees working in the estab-
F lishment of the High Court as Senior Translators and Junior Translators.
They are governed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and
Servants (Salaries, Leave, Allowance and Pension) Rules, 1971 (for short,
the Rules). Similar posts in the establishment of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court are governed by Punjab & Haryana High Court Establishment
G (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973. Relevant provisions
of these Rules of Punjab and Haryana High Court were given effect in that
High Court w.e.f. 25.9.1985 as per notification dated 23.1.1986 after receiv-
ing approval of the President of India under clause (2) of Article 229 read
with Article 231 of the Constitution. As a result, posts of Senior Translators
H were redesignated as Revisors and equated with the posts of 'Superinten-
STATEv. P.D.ATTRI[D.P. WADHWA,J.] 591
,, dent Grade-II in the Establishment of the Punjab Civil Secretariat. Similar- A
ly posts of Junior Translators were redesignated as Translators and
• ·equated with the posts of Assistant in the Establishment of the Punjab Civil
Secretariat. Consequent upon the redesignation of these posts in Punjab &
Haryana High Court, these posts were similarly redesignated/equated in
the High Court by the Chief Justice after obtaining approval from the
B
Governor of lhe State. That was by notification dated 17.6.1987. Respon-
~

.•· dents were given their new designations and scale of pay from 25.9.1985.

Subsequemly, Notification dated 23.1.1986 issued by the Punjab &
Haryana High Court was superseded by another Notification dated

-, ' 8.10.1987 whereby Punjab & Haryana High Court Establishment (Appoint-
ment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1973 were given effect from 23.1.1975
c
instead of 25.9.1985. This was done there because of the decision of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sunder Sham Kapur's case
(supra) as above mentioned. However, on that basis respondents repre-
sented to the Chief Justice of the High Court to allow them similar benefits D
from 23.1.1975. Their case was recommended by the Chief Justice to the
State Government for obtaining approval of the Governor of the State for
redesignation/equation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Trans-
lators from 23.1.1975 instead of 25.9.1985. Since no approval was received
from the Governor of the State as recommended by the Chief Justice of E
the High Court, the respondents filed writ petition in the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution for redressal of their grievance. By the
impugned judgment High Court agreed with their stand.

Case of the respondents is not based on any Constitutional or any
x other legal provisions when they claim parity with the posts similarly F
designated in the Punjab & Haryana High Court and their pay-scales from
the same date. They do not allege any violation of any Constitutional
provision or any other provision of law. They say it is so because of
"accepted policy and common practice" which according to them are
undisputed. We do not think we can import such vague principles while G
interpreting the provisions of law. India is a union of States. Each State has
\,,
its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution. One State
is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees
of the other State or if it had adopted the same rules and regulations, it is
not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.

A the other State. The question then arises before us is if the State of
Himachal Pradesh has to follow every change brought in the States of
Punjab & Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to the
employees in the States of Punjab & Haryana. The answer has to be in
negative. No argument is needed for that as anyone having basic knowledge
B of the Constitution would not argue otherwise. True, the State as per
"policy and practice" had been adopting the same pay-scales for the
employees of the High Court as sanctioned from time to time for the
employees of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and it may even now
follow to grant pay-scales but is certainly not bound to follow. No law
C commands it to do so.

The State of Punjab was reorganised into States of Punjab, Haryana
and Himachal Pradesh, to begin with, was a Union Territory and was given
the status of full statehood in 1970. Since employees of the composite
States of Punjab were taken in various Departments of the State of
D Himachal Pradesh in order to safeguard the seniority, pay-scales etc., the
State of Himachal Pradesh followed the Punjab pattern of pay-scales. After )
attaining the status of full statehood, High Court of Himachal Pradesh
formulated its own rules and regulations for its employees. It adopted the
pattern of Punjab & Haryana High Court rules of their employees. When
E Punjab & Haryana High Court gave effect to certain portion of its Rules
from 25.9.1985 by notification dated 23.1.1986 as a result of which redesig-
nation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators were
equated to the posts in Punjab Civil Secretariat, the Himachal Pradesh
High Court similar effect was given to in its rules for its employees. When
F the Punjab & Haryana High Court gave effect to those rules from
23.1.1975, the State Government did not agree to the recommendations of
the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to follow the same
suit. It is true that till now, Himachal Pradesh High Court has been
following the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court and it may go on following those rules as may be amended by
G the Punjab & Haryana High Court from time to time, but certainly it is not
bound to so follow. No law commands the State Government to follow the
rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to
the employees of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. That being the
position, it is not necessary for us to. examine different qualifications for
H appointment to the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators that
STATE v. P.D. ATIRI [D.P. WAD HWA, J.] 593
1, may exist between Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Himachal A
_, Pradesh High Court and also as to the mode of their recruitment/place-
ment in the service. Moreover, any change in the pay-scales following
Punjab & Haryana High Court can set in motion chain reaction for other
employees which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation among •.•arious
categories of employees. Rules of each High Court have to be examined
independently. There cannot be any such law that Himachal Pradesh High
B
_, Court has to suo motu follow the same rules as applicable to the employees
,.. working in the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

But then the fact remains that when the Chief Justice of the
Himachal Pradesh High Court made recommendations to the Governor to c
? redesignate/equate the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators
in the Himachal Pradesh High Court to thos.e in the Punjab & Haryana
. High Court, no decision was communicated which led the respondent to
approach the High Court on its judicial side. Recommendations of the
Chief Justice of the High Court are to be given due deference and utmost D
T.
consideration by the State Government. It certainly cannot sleep over the
recommendations. Things have now certainly changed after the decision of
this Court Sunder Sham Kapoor's case [1997) 9 SCC 174 where Revisors
in the Punjab & Haryana High Court are to be given benefit of pay-scale
of Superintendent (Grade-II) from 5.8.1980 from which date the respon-
E
dents are agreeable to the benefits granted to them. We may again observe
and commend to the State Governments, the following observations of this
Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India,
[1989) 4 sec 187 para 57:

F
"57. So far a_s the Supreme Court and the High Courts are con-
cerned, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the
concerned High Court, are empowered to frame rules subject to
this that when the rules are framed by the Chief Justice of India
or by the Chief Justice of the High Court relating to salaries,
allowances, leave or pensions, the approval of the President of G
India or the Governor, as the case may be, is required. It is
~
apparent that the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of
the High Court have been placed at a higher level in regard to the
framing of rules containing the conditions of service. It is true that
the president of India cannot be compelled to grant approval to H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, '
A
allowances, leave or pensions, but it is equally true that when such
rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it
.
should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good
reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be
granted. If the President of India is of the view that the approval
B · cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant such
approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts ,._
-<
between the President of India and the Chief Justice of India."

This Court again in Hif)1 Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh
c Chand Paliwal & Anr., IT (1998) 2 SC 1 restated what a State Government '
'i
is expected to do when recommendations are made by "Chief Justice of the
High Court in following words :

"Since, under the Constitution, Chief Justice has also the power to [
make rules regulating the conditions of service of the officers and
D servants of the High Court, it is obvious that he can also prescribe
')
the scale of salary payable for a particular post. This would also
include the power to revise the scale of pay. Since such a rule
would involve finances, it has been provided in the Consti~ution
that it will require the approval of the Governor which, in other
E words, means the State Government. This Court in State of Andhra
Pradesh & Anr. v. 'f.. Gopalakrishnan Murthi & Ors., AIR (1976)
SC 123 = (1976] 1 SCR 1008, had expressed the hope that "one
should accept in the fitness of things and in view of the spirit of
Article 229 that the approval, ordinarily and generally, would be
F accorded." This was reiterated by this Court in Supreme Court -;.
Employees Welfare Association v. union of India, IT (1989) 3 SC
188 = AIR (1990) SC 334 = (1989] 3 SCR 488 = (1989] 4 sec
187. We again reiterate the hope and feel that once the Chief
Justice, in the interest of High Court administration, has taken a
G progressive step specially to ameliorate the service conditions of
the officers and staff working under him, the State Government
would hardly raise any objection to the sanction of creation of posts
. or fixation of salary payable for that post or the recommendation
for revision of scale of pay if the scale of pay of the equivalent post
H in the Government has been revised."
STATEv. P.D.ATIRI[D.P. WADHWA,J.] 595
Recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh A
High Court should be considered by the State Government having regard
to the observations made above and decision taken at an early date.

With the observations aforesaid, this appeal is, however, allowed and
impugned judgment is set aide. Parties shall bear their own costs.
B
U.R. Apeal allowed.

-:.·