K.R. Jayaprakash Narayanan v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 25TH POUSHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.R. JAYAPRAKASH NARAYANAN, AGED 55 YEARS,** **REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695001. 2 THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. 3 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** **The petitioner, who was appointed as Registrar (Administration) of the High Court of Kerala on 15.07.2009 as per Ext.P8 order, is aggrieved by the anomaly of continuing in the very same pay, which he was getting prior to his promotion, till his retirement. It is also his case that the other Registrars of the high Court in equivalent cadres were drawing their pay in a higher scale. Petitioner, who was promoted from the post of Joint Registrar continued to get the very same pay throughout his career as Registrar (Administration) as he was stagnating in this scale. He is aggrieved by the denial of pay revision for the post of Registrar (Adminsistration) in tune with the duties and** **responsibilities attached to the post.** **2. The petitioner, who entered service in the High Court on 08.10.1984 got further promotions and he joined as Joint Registrar on 23.06.2005.** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **3** **The post of Registrar (Administration) is Category No.5A in Division I(1) of the High Court Service Rules, as amended w.e.f. 01.01.2007. As a Joint Registrar he was drawing pay in scale of pay 23000-31150; the pay scale of Registrar (Administration) was revised to Rs.46640-59840 w.e.f. 01.07.2009 from 25400-33100 (pre-revised). The petitioner points out that in Division I, there are posts of Registrar General, Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary), Registrar (Vigilance), Director of Training, Additional Director of Training, Deputy Director of Training, Assistant Director of Training etc., and appointments to those posts are usually made by deputation. It is** **stated that the post of Registrar (Administration) was created as per G.O. (MS).No.221/2007/Home dated 22.09.2007.** **Qualification fixed for the post was Degree in Law or Business Management or Business Administration or Judicial Administration. On** **creation of the post, Registrar (Administration)** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **4** ## **was also included in Division No.I.** **3. Petitioner points out that the appointments to the post of Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary), Registrar (Vigilance) etc., are made on deputation from among the Super Time Scale and Selection Grade District Judges. It is pointed out that the District Judges, who are in the Higher Judiciary are drawing pay in a scale higher than that of Registrars of this Court. As the method of appointment to those posts is by Deputation from District Judges, they continued to get the scale of pay attached to the parent post. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the method of appointment to the post of Registrar (Administration) is by promotion and only in the absence of qualified hands, appointment would be made by other methods. As the petitioner is the only person in the category of Registrar who was appointed by promotion,** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **5** **he was able to draw the pay only in the scale of pay attached to the post. It is stated that even while working as Joint Registrar he was drawing the maximum of the scale it is 59840 w.e.f. 01.07.2009, consequent to the implementation of the pay revision order which came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2009. Therefore on appointment as Registrar (Administration) on 15.07.2009, petitioner did not have any financial benefits despite the onerous duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Registrar (Administration). It is stated that he had submitted a representation Ext.P11 before the High Court as well as the Government in which he had pointed out that he continued to draw the very same pay right from 15.07.2009. Petitioner had also to retire from service on 30.04.2017 drawing the very same pay as it was the maximum of the scale. It was stated that the scale of pay of Joint Registrar was revised as 44640-58640+900 special pay. His** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **6** **promotion was to the scale of pay of 4664059840. It was fixed at Rs.59840 w.e.f. 15.07.2009. Petitioner points out that previous incumbents of the post of Registrar (Administration) were appointed by Deputation from the Higher Judicial Service and they continued to draw their pay as District Judges even on appointment as Registrars. Petitioner also points out that even the scale of pay attached to the post of the Registrar General as well as the Registrars are considerably lesser, considering the duties and responsibilities attached to the posts. It is also pointed out that as per the Government Orders an appointment on deputation is not normally permissible to a post having lower scale of pay; even then the appointments are made by deputation to the categories of Registrars in the High Court contrary to the government orders. According to him, this can be avoided by enhancing the pay scale of all** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **7** ## **Registrars at least to that of Super Time Scale District Judge.** **4. In the representation Ext.P11 petitioner had explained the scale of pay which was admissible to various posts, the pay drawn by the Registrars in different categories. It was pointed out that it was only in his case that he has to continue in the post without any enhancement in the pay during his entire career as Registrar (Administration). Even though the representation Ext.P11 was submitted there was no independent consideration by the 1[st] respondent with respect to his case when orders were issued revising the pay and allowances of the staff in High Court as per Ext.P13 order on 20.06.2016. According to the petitioner, the duties and responsibilities of all the Registrars are equal and a situation where the petitioner alone is drawing lesser pay amounts to discrimination.** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **8** **5. The 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit; it is stated that for appointment to the post of Registrar General, Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary), Registrar (Vigilance), Law Degree is an essential qualification and deputation from among District Judges is the sole method of appointment prescribed for the categories of Registrar (Vigilance), Registrar (Recruitment & Computerization), Director of Kerala Judicial Academy, Additional Director of Judicial Academy etc. At the same time, the methods of appointment to the post of Registrar (Administration), which is included as category 5A of Sub Division-1 in Division-1 of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007, are deputation or promotion from Joint Registrar, with a condition that the deputation will be made from those who are holding the posts, having the scale of pay not less than that of the Joint Registrar of the High Court, in the judicial service, Government services or Public** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **9** **Sector Undertakings and from among those having degree in Business Management or Business Administration or Judicial Administration or in Law. It is further stated that Government did not accept the master scale of pay proposed in the 10[th] Pay Revision Commission recommendation. The Pay Revision Commission had submitted recommendation proposing the master scale beginning from Rs.17,000/- and ending with Rs.1,20,000/-. But Government did not accept the same but restructured and reduced the master scales of pay while issuing order dated 20.06.2016. It is stated that in several cases, the pay was revised on the basis of the rules issued by the Honourable Chief Justice under Article 229(2). It was also stated that the master scale proposed for the High Court by the Pay Revision Commission as proposed for the State Government employees, was not accepted. It is stated that in the case of the Registrar General, the pay was revised as Rs.93000-120000** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **10** **and in the case of other Registrars, it was revised as Rs.89000–120000. The respondents have also admitted that as per order dated 28.11.2013, Government have ordered that deputation would be allowed only at the level at which the post was sanctioned originally and the intention is not to post, officers with higher scale to the post having lesser scale. It is stated that the request of petitioner to grant him the pay and allowances of District Judges (Selection Grade) and District Judge (Entry Level), to the post of Registrar General and other Registrars is not admissible.** **6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgments in** _**Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Others**_ **[(1982) 1 SCC 618];** _**V.Markendeya and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others**_ **[AIR 1989 SC 1308];** _**Union of India and Another v. Mahajabeen Akhtar**_ **[2008 KHC 4101];** _**Jaipal and Others v. State of**_ **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **11** _**Haryana and Others**_ **[AIR 1988 SC 1504];** _**State of West Bengal and Another v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and Others**_ **[(2010) 5 SCC 225];** _**State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and Others**_ **[(2017) 1 SCC 148];** _**Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited and Others v. Naresh Kumar Mishra and Others**_ **[(2019) 5 SCC 110], argued that petitioner is entitled to get pay on par with the other Registrars of the High Court, whose duties and responsibilities are similar. It is pointed out that even when method of appointment is different, the denial of the pay on par with such appointees though paid from different sources would amount to discrimination.** **7. It is relevant to note that there was practically no enhancement in the pay packet of the petitioner even after pay revision ordered in 2016. He continued to draw the same pay, through out the entire service career of more** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **12** **than eight years as Registrar (Administration), despite the enhancement in the volume of duties and responsibilities which were more onerous all these years. Though the reason for the same was that he was stagnating in the feeder category, to retain a person without any difference or improvement in the pay, for several years would adversely affect the morale of the employee adversely; if the Government had granted a master scale at least in such cases, it would have been beneficial for the petitioner and the contingency of drawing the same pay could have been avoided. It is seen that Government has not considered the representation Ext.P11 submitted by the petitioner before pay revision was ordered. It is also pertinent to note that the case of the petitioner would be a solitary one as anomalies in his case are not likely to occur in the case of any other officers of this Court.** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **13** **8. It is pointed out that consequent to the pay revision, petitioner was drawing a pay of Rs.1,23,864/- as on 01.07.2014 and he continued to receive the same till his retirement. Petitioner has got another contention that the Registrar General of High Court is a post analogous to that of Chief Secretary to Government, as per the organisational set up provided in the Kerala High Court Office Manual; the position of Registrars are immediately below that of Registrar General and it is therefore necessary to grant them a scale of pay on par with and with due respect to the status of the post which they occupy.** **Therefore, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration with respect to the case of petitioner and there shall be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner. As Ext.P11** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **14** **representation was submitted before the pay revision ordered in 2016, petitioner would be free to submit a supplementary representation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On receipt of the same, the 1[st] respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.** **Accordingly, this writ petition is** **disposed of.** **Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE** AS/WW **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **15** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 26.9.1984 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT.** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.2.1986 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT.** **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.2.1989 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT.** **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.2.1995 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT.** **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.5.1995 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.2.1999 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.6.2005 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PAY REVISION ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS PER G.O. DATED 18.11.2011.** - **EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.3.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 10TH PAY REVISION COMMISSION.** - **EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.7.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(P) NO.180/ 2016/HOME DATED 20.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.** **WP(C).No.30246 OF 2016(R)** **16** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R2(A):** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE HIGH COURT SERVICE RULES.** **EXHIBIT R2(B):** **TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3823/2001/HOME DATED 05.11.2001 OF THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXHIBIT R2(C):** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL DATED 07.03.2005.** **EXHIBIT R2(D):** **TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS.) NO.221/2007/HOME DATED 22.09.2007 OF THE GOVERNMENT.**