Holding

The High Court was not correct to issue the writ of mandamus, but the Supreme Court will not interfere as the order has been complied with and the matter is old.

Summary

The petitioners, Personal Assistants and Junior Stenographers of the Delhi High Court, sought an upgraded pay scale in parity with their Central Government counterparts after the Central Government revised the latter's scales. The Delhi High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to grant the upgraded scale, which the Union complied with. The Union appealed, contending that a High Court cannot issue a mandamus directing a statutory authority to fix a particular pay scale. The Supreme Court held that, although the High Court was not correct in issuing the writ, the matter was old and the direction had already been acted upon, so no interference was warranted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to grant a specific pay scale to High Court employees.
Scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters of administrative pay determinations.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 229(2)

Subjects

judicial reviewwrit of mandamuspay scalehigh court employeesconstitutional lawArticle 226Article 229administrative law

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA
v. A
KISHAN K. SHARMA AND ORS.

JANUARY 5, 2004

[V. N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.] B

Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 226-Judicial review-Writ of
mandamus-Extent and scope of-Upgraded pay scale for certain employees
of High Court-Recommendation for sanction--Governmetlt not sanctioning
for a long time-On writ petition High Court directed Central Government to C
pay the employees the recommended pay scale-Government complied with
the direction of the High Court and preferred appeal to Supreme Court-
Held, though High Court was not correct in issuing writ of mandamus, in view
of the facts that the matter is old and that the High Court's direction has
already been acted upon, it is not interfered with.
D
Pay scales of respondent-employees of High Court was fixed by High
Court, in parity with the pay-scales of their counterparts in Central
) Government. After further revision of the scales of concerned employees
of Central Go\•ernment, representation was made by High Court to the
Centnll Government to sanction proposed upgraded pay scales of the E
concerned employees of High Court, in parity with the concerned
employees of Central Government, but no action was taken.

Respondents filed writ petition on the ground that they stood on a
better footing than their counterparts in the Central Government and
cannot have any parity with them. High Court issued writ of mandamus F
directing Central Government to pay salary to the concerned employees
of the High Court at upgraded pay scale. Subsequently direction of High
Court was acted upon by the Central Government.

In appeal to this Court appellant contended that High Court on its
judicial side cannot issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing G
Central Government to pay the respondents a particular scale of pay.

Respondents contended that though generally it is not permissible
for High Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing a statutory authority
to discharge its function in a particular manner, but in the present case it H
113
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) I S.C.R.

A was permissible as despite recommendations of High Court no order was r
passed for a long time.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: Although the High Court was not correct in issuing the
B impugned directions but having regard to the fact that the matter is an
old one and the direction of the High Court has already been acted upon,
the impugned judgment need not be interfered with. 1116-G-Hf
y
Union of India v. S.B. Vohra and Ors., 120041 2 SCC 150, relied on.

c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6252of1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.1996 of the Delhi High Court
in C.W.P. No. 1174 of 1994.

L.N. Rao, R. Venkataramani, Hemant Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, P.
D Parmeswaran, Maninder Singh, Ms. A. Subhashini, Naresh Kumar and Ashok
Panigrahi for the appearing parties.

The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by ~
S.B. SINHA, J. How far and to what extent a writ of or in the nature
E of mandamus should be issued directing the Union of India to pay salary to
the Officers of the High Court in a particular scale of pay is the question
involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 8th
August, 1996 passed by the High Court of Delhi in C. W.P. No. 1174/94.

The respondents herein are Personal Assistants to the Deputy Registrar
F of the High Court or Junior Stenographers. It is not in dispute that the scales
of pay of the officers and employees of the High Court did not fall for
consideration by the Pay Commission appointed by the Central Government.
The Delhi High Court, however, in the light of the recommendations made "'
by the 4th Pay Commission fixed the scales of pay of the Respondent Nos.
G I to 6 herein at Rs. 1400 to Rs. 2300 which was similar to those payable to
the Personal Assistants of the Joint Secretaries.

The President of India, however, on representations made by the
concerned employees of the Central Government revised the scales of pay of h
the P.A. to the Deputy Secretaries at Rs. 1640 to Rs. 2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 by
H reason of Office memorandum dated 3 lst July, 1990. The respondents herein
U.0.1. v. Kl SHANK. SHARMA [SINHA, J.) 115
thereafter filed a representation before the Chief Justice of the High Court A
who made his recommendations therefor to the Government of India clearly
stating that keeping in view the fact that the posts of Joint Registrar and
Deputy Registrar in Delhi High Court carry the same scales of pay as
prescribed for the posts of Director and Deputy Secretary of the Government
of India respectively, the proposed upgraded pay scales to the posts of Personal
Assistant to the Deputy Registrar and Junior Stenographers should be B
sanctioned. No action was, however, taken thereupon.

The Respondent Nos. I to 6 herein thereafter filed a writ petition inter
a/ia contending that they stand on a better footing than their counterparts in
the Central Government both as regard nature of work as also the duties C
performed by them which involve high degree of efficiency and integrity and
responsibilities as compared to the duties of Personal Assistant or Junior
Stenographers attached to the Joint Secretaries of the Government of India.
The appellant in its counter affidavit filed before the High Court, however,
stated that the memorandum dated 31st July, 1990 prescribing revised pay
scale of Rs. 1640-2900 was applicable only to the Assistants and Stenographers D
working in the Ministries/department. It was further stated that the Private
Secretaries working in the High Court cannot have any parity of scales of pay
with Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the Government of India. The
High Court, however, supported the stand of the writ petitioner-respondents.

A Division bench of the High Court upon considering the materials E
placed on records and having regard to the nature of duties performed by the
Personal Assistants and Stenographers attached to the Joint Registrars vis-a-
vis those who are attached to the Director or Deputy Secretaries held that the
respondents were entitled to the grant of pay scale of Rs. 1640-60-2500-EB-
75-2900 observing : F
"The mode of appointment for the post of PA to Deputy Registrar
and Junior Stenographer is by direct recruitment on the basis of written
test and interview. Minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment
to the post is graduate with speed not less than I00 wpm in shorthand
and 40 wpm in typewriting. The qualification are more than what is G
prescribed for Personal Assistants and Grade 'C' Stenographers in
Government of India for whom though the mode of appointment is
by direct recruitment on the basis of written test and interview, but
minimum qualification is matriculate with speed of not less than I00
wpm in shorthand and 35 wpm in typewriting."
H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) I S.C.R.

A Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing f'
for the Union of India, inter alia, submitted that the Division Bench of the
High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment
insofar as it failed to take into consideration that it on its judicial side cannot
issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Central Government
and the Respondents herein to grant the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f.
B 1.1.1986 in favour of the respondents. The learned counsel would submit that
having regard to the provisions contained in Clause 2 of Article 229 of the
Constitution of India, the Chief Justice of the High Court may in his wisdom
fix the pay scale but therefor approval of the President of India was imperative.

C Mr. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the
private respondents, on the other hand, wou Id at the outset draw our attention
to the fact that the impugned judgment has already been implemented by the
appellant. The learned counsel pointed out that in this case the writ petitioners
were placed in the same scale of pay as that of the Personal Assistants of the
Director and/Joint Secretaries and the Central Government had accepted the
D recommendations made by the High Court in this behalf and in that view of
the matter having regard to the office memorandum dated 31st July, 1990 the
i;ippellants should have also accepted the recommendations of the High Court
when the scales of pay was revised in terms of a Presidential order. The
learned counsel submitted that although in a given case it may not be
E pern1issible for the High Court to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus
directing a statutory authority to pass an order or direct discharge the statutory
function in ·a particular manner but in this case such an order had to be passed
as despite recommendations made by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High
Court no order thereupon was passed for a long time.

F The extent and scope of judicial review for the purpose of issuance of
writ of or in the nature of Mandamus for the grant of scale has been considered
by us in Union of India v. S.B. Vohra and Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 2887 of
200 I) which is also being disposed of on this day.

Following the said decision, we are of the opinion, although the High
G Court was not correct in issuing the impugned directions but having regard
to the fact that the matter is an old one and the direction of the High Court
has already been acted upon, the impugned judgment need not be interfered
with. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of ·f....
the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

.H K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.