K.C. SREENIVAS v STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

**“CR”** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 23753 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** K.C.SREENIVAS AGED 44 YEARS SUPERINTENDENT (VEHICLES), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. BY ADVS. K.JAJU BABU (SR.) M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI BRIJESH MOHAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL. 3 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5 THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADVS. SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY ELVIN PETER P.J. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ADV.P.G.PRAMOD GP TO STATE ATTORNEY **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -2- ## **“CR”** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 31[st] day of March, 2022 The petitioner is working as Superintendent (Vehicles) in the High Court of Kerala. He was initially appointed on deputation and was absorbed in the High Court service on appointment by transfer, as per order dated 02.07.2012. On absorption, the petitioner's scale of pay was fixed at Rs.10790-18000 with a special pay of Rs.500 per month. Later, based on G.O.(MS) No.257/2011/Home dated 18.11.2011, G.O.(MS) No.195/2012/Home dated 16.07.2012 and Order No.18330/2010/J5/FW dated 6.08.2012 of the High Court, the petitioner's pay was fixed in the revised scale of Rs.18740-33680. 2. The 10[th] Pay Revision Commission set up by the Government for revision of pay and allowances of State Government employees was ## W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -3- entrusted with the task of studying and making recommendations on the revision of pay and allowances and other benefits of the High Court employees also. Accordingly, the 10[th] pay revision commission submitted its report to the Honourable Chief Justice. In the report, the Commission had recommended upgradation of the existing post of Superintendent (Vehicles) to the level of Assistant Engineer (PWD) in the revised scale corresponding to Rs.22360-37940, _viz;_ Rs.4580087000. The Honourable Chief Justice constituted a Committee of Judges to make specific proposals after examining the report of the Pay Revision Commission. Accordingly, the Committee submitted its suggestions and the Chief Justice, in exercise of the power under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, forwarded the proposal to the Government for revising the scale of pay and allowances and other benefits to the employees of the High Court. In the case of Superintendent W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -4- (Vehicles), the recommendation was to replace the existing scale of pay with the revised pay scale of Rs.45800-87000. Even though the revised scale of pay of Rs.18740-33680 is 37500-75600, the Pay Revision Commission had recommended the scale of pay Rs.45800-87000 for the petitioner, taking into account the long years of service rendered by the petitioner, as also the workload and additional responsibilities attached to the post. The Government, by G.O.(P) No.180/2016/Home dated 20.06.2016, revised the pay and allowances of some of the posts, ignoring many of the recommendations of the Chief Justice. Instead of the scale of pay of Rs.45800-87000 recommended in the petitioner's case, his scale was revised to Rs.35700-75600. 3. Thereupon, the Registrar General of the High Court wrote to the Government seeking rectification of the anomalies, including fixation of proper revised scale for the post of ## W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -5- Superintendent (Vehicles). By G.O.(P) No.19/2018, the Government rectified some of the anomalies and refused to rectify the others. The anomaly regarding pay scale of Superintendent (Vehicles) was not rectified on the premise that the recommendation is for four level hike in scale of pay (personal upgradation) and as per the general decision taken on revision of scale of pay and allowances, personal upgradation is not allowed except where the scale of pay of the post is downgraded. 4. Aggrieved by the refusal to rectify the anomaly with respect to his revision of pay, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C).No.23726 of 2018 before this Court. By Ext.P6 judgment, this Court set aside the proceedings by which recommendation for revision of the petitioner's pay scale was rejected and directed the Government to consider the question of revision of the pay in respect of Superintendent (Vehicles) after exchange of views W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -6- with the Chief Justice. In Ext.P6 judgment, the learned Single Judge had made elaborate reference to the precedents on the powers of the Chief Justice under Article 229 and the manner in which the Government is expected to respond to the recommendations made by the Chief Justice. 5. On receipt of Ext.P6 judgment, the Government curtly called for the remarks of the Registrar General of the High Court. In response, the Registrar General sent Ext.P8 reply. Untimately, the Government issued Ext.P9 order dated 19.02.2021, sanctioning personal scale of Rs.42500-87000 to the petitioner, viz, the restructured scale of pay recommended by the 10[th] pay revision commission and the Honourable Chief Justice. The Government having thus approved the scale of pay, Ext.P10 proceedings was issued by the High Court making the Government order applicable in the High Court service. W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -7- 6. The issue regarding petitioner's scale of pay did not attain finality with Exts.P9 and P10 orders, since an Accounts Officer in the office of the Accountant General (A&E) thought otherwise and raised a query whether Ext.P9 Government order has retrospective effect or the pay should be fixed notionally w.e.f 01.07.2014 up to 18.02.2021 and monetary benefit of the revision given only from 19.02.2021, the date of Ext.P9 order. The deliberate confusion created by the Accounts Officer got confounded further with the Government issuing Ext.P13 order, according sanction for fixing the petitioner's pay in the personal scale of pay of Rs.42500-87000 notionally w.e.f 1.07.2014 up to 30.06.2019 and extending the monetary benefit from 01.07.2019, ie, the date of effect of the 11[th] pay revision. The recommendation of the 10[th] pay revision commission and the proposal of the Honourable Chief Justice having thus been scuttled, the ## W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -8- petitioner is driven back to this Court again, this time with a prayer to quash Exts.P11 and P13 and to declare that he is entitled for revision of pay as per Ext.P9 with effect from 01.07.2014, in consonance with paragraph 3 of Ext.P3 Government order. 7. Senior Counsel Adv.K.Jaju Babu voiced his concern at the manner in which the Government officers are trampling upon the recommendations made by the Honourable Chief Justice. Relying on a series of decisions, it is submitted that the scheme of Article 229 envisaged that the recommendations made by the Chief Justice of the State with regard to salaries, allowances, leave or pension would, in all fairness be, accepted and, unless there are very good reasons, approval granted. 8. Heard Adv.Elwin Peter, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court and Adv.P.G.Pramod, learned Government Pleader representing the W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -9- State. 9. As mentioned earlier, in Ext.P6 judgment the learned Single Judge, after elaborate reference to the precedents, had observed that, despite the plethora of judgments, Government had not discussed or exchanged ideas with the Chief Justice before issuing Ext.P5 order. Direction was therefore issued to reconsider the question of revision of pay for the post of Superintendent (Vehicles) after exchange of ideas with the Chief Justice. It is disheartening to note that after revising the scale of pay of Superintendent (Vehicles), obviously compelled by the direction in Ext.P6 judgment, the revision is made notional from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2019, there by scaling down the monetary effect of the revision. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that in Ext.P3 Government Order approving the 10[th] pay revision commission recommendation and in the proposal of the Chief Justice, it is ## W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -10- specifically stated that the existing scale of pay of the employees of the High Court is revised w.e.f. 01.07.2014. As such the query in Ext.P11 was not worth the paper on which it was written and no right minded person would have issued Ext. P13 order based on such a query. 10. Before parting with the case I have to advert to another disturbing aspect pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel. It is seen that in W.P.(C) No.23726 of 2018, an affidavit (Ext.P12) was filed on behalf of the Government by one Sreejith V.P, Deputy Secretary, Home(C) Department, wherein it was unequivocally stated as under; “ _The Government, after considering the recommendation of the pay revision commission and the recommendation of the Honourable Chief Justice, issued G.O.(P) No.180/2016/Home dated 20.06.2016 revising the scale of pay of staff of the Honourable High Court with effect from 01.07.2014.”_ Shockingly, the very same officer (Sreejith V.P) ## W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -11- is the signatory to Ext.P13 order also. Thus Ext.P13 reflects the casual and callous manner in which the recommendations of the Chief Justice is dealt with by the Government. In this regard, it may be pertinent to note that a similar instance of official apathy had forced this Court to make the following observations in Ext.P18 judgment. “ _14.Further, before parting with the case, in view of the arguments raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners as well the learned counsel appearing for the High Court, I am of the opinion that it is only proper that in specific cases of directions issued by the Apex Court and recommendations forwarded by the High Court in pursuance thereto, the files shall be immediately placed before the Law Secretary and opinion rendered thereon before they are put up through the sections for comments. The existence of Rules of Conduct framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India should not be cited as a reason for the issuance of orders in the nature of Exts.P11 and P13, which amount to an affront to the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The necessary instruction shall be issued by_ W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -12- _the competent respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.”_ Obviously the above directions have fallen on deaf ears, since the records of this case do not reflect any consultation with the Law Secretary prior to the issuance of Ext.P13 order. 11. In the wake of the selective memory loss being exhibited by certain officers in the Government, rather than citing all the precedents on deferential manner in which the Government is expected to to deal with the recommendations of the Chief Justice, I deem it appropriate to extract the following contextually relevant paragraph from the _**Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association etc.. v. Union of India**_ ## _**[(1989) 4 SCC 187]**_ . “ _**57.** So far as the Supreme Court and the High Courts are concerned, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, are empowered to frame rules subject to this that when_ W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -13- _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 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 the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, 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 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.”_ _(underline emphasised)_ 12. Even with the feigned ignorance and selective amnesia of certain officers while dealing with the recommendations of the Chief ## W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 **==> picture [23 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Justice, it may not be difficult to comprehend the meaning of usages like “looked upon with respect' and “exchange of thoughts”. As waiting for wisdom to dawn on such persons will be an exercise in futility, the following steps are directed to be taken in cases pertaining to the recommendations/proposals of the Honourable Chief Justice; The Government Pleader concerned shall bring the judgment/ order to the notice of the State Attorney, who, after bestowing his personal attention to the directions therein, shall forward the judgment and related records to the Law Secretary. Thereupon, the Law Secretary shall, after perusal of the judgment and the records, express his opinion regarding the action to be taken in the matter. Thereafter, the file generated at the Section shall invariably contain the Law Secretary's opinion and the officials concerned shall refer to the opinion before ## W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -15- initiating further action. I conclude with the hope that the above direction will not meet the same fate as the direction in Ext.P18 judgment. The writ petition is thus allowed, Ext.P11 order quashed and the petitioner declared to be entitled for revision of pay as per Ext.P9 with effect from 01.07.2014. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to take consequential action for disbursing the monetary benefits due to the petitioner expeditiously. The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the learned Advocate General, the State Attorney, the Chief Secretary and the Law Secretary. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/ W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 -16- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23753/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1|COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE| |---|---| ||RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION| ||RELATING TO SCALE OF PAY CONTAINED IN| ||CHAPTER 111| |Exhibit P2|COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE| ||PROPOSAL VIDE DO NO FW/J3-49631/2014| ||DATED 6.11.2015 OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF| ||JUSTICE| |Exhibit P3|COPY OF THE GO(P) NO 180/2016/HOME| ||DATED 20.6.2016 REVISING THE PAY AND| ||ALLOWANCES TO THE STAFF OF THE HON'BLE| ||HIGH COURT| |Exhibit P4|COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION VIDE NO| ||FW/J3-49631-2014 DATED 7.10.2016| ||ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL BEFORE| ||THE GOVERNMENT| |Exhibit P5|COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ORDER| ||GO(P) NO 19/2018 DATED 28.4.2018| |Exhibit P6|COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.9.2019| ||WPC NO 23726/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE| ||COURT| |Exhibit P7|COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE NO| ||C2/398/2019/HOME DATED 24.9.2020| ||ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE| ||REGISTRAR OF THIS HON'BLE COURT| |Exhibit P8|COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION VIDE NO FW3-| ||63304/2018/FW7 DATED 13.11.2020 OF| ||THIS HON'BL COURT| |Exhibit P9|COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO| ||GO(MS) NO 55/2021/HOME DATED 19.2.2021| |Exhibit P10|COPY OF THE ORDER NO FW3-| ||63304/2018/FW7 DATED 17.3.2021 OF THIS| ||HON'BLE COURT| |Exhibit P11|COPY OF THE LETTER GE15/3/S-473/28| ||DATED 19.4.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER| |Exhibit P12|COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF EXTENSION OF| ||TIME SIGNED BY THE SRI.V.P SREEJITH| ||DEPUTY SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT IN| -17- ## W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2021 WPC NO 23726/2018 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P13 Exhibit P14 Exhibit P15 Exhibit P16 Exhibit P17 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO RO(RT) NO 1841/HOME DATED 1.7.2021 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO GO(MS) NO 315/2016/HOME DATED 14.12.2016 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.10.2017 IN COC NO 1766/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO GO(MS) NO 215/2017/HOME DATED 26.10.2017 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.2.2021 IN WPC NO 36889/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P18 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN DATED 29.1.2021 IN WPC NO 1893/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT