Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed in part; Government direc...

The Chauffeurs of the High Court of Kerala v State of Kerala and High Court of Kerala, represented by its Registrar General

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.23254/2016(R)
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2021-02-04
Court Decision / Holding
This Writ Petition is allowed to the extent that the Government is directed to grant concurrence to the Chief Justice’s recommendations for two Head Chauffeur posts and to issue the corresponding orders expeditiously, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed in part; Government directed to grant concurrence and implement the Chief Justice’s recommendations within two months of receipt of judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P.K. Harikumar
  • G. Anilkumar
  • N.K. Haridas
  • S. Madhusudanan
  • E.K. Kunhikanan
  • M. Rajan
  • K.P. Sunilkumar
  • Shibu C.K.
  • K.K. Nazar
  • P. Krishnamoorthi
  • K. Devadasan
  • U.K. Rajasekharan
  • A.V. Radheshyam
  • R. Reghunathan Pillai
  • Manoj D.
  • Santhosh K.J.
  • S. Money
  • Jalesh V.K.
  • Jifi Abraham
  • Giri V.K
  • Anilkumar S
  • P.D. Antony
  • Bijish V.C
  • Binu J
  • E.S. Noufal
  • Rajesh M.S

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • High Court of Kerala represented by its Registrar General, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. V. Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. M.R. Anison
  • • Smt. V.P. Seemandini (Sr.)
  • • Sri. Sunil Kumar KuriaKose
  • • Smt. Bhargavi (SC-HC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, Chauffeurs in the High Court of Kerala, challenge the Government’s stance on sanctioning two additional Head Chauffeur posts. The sole surviving issue is whether the recommendations of the Honourable Chief Justice are properly dealt with by the Government in respect of these posts. The Chief Justice framed Rules under Article 229 of the Constitution and forwarded them to the Government under Article 229(2). The Government accepted several recommendations but rejected others, including the two Head Chauffeur posts, arguing that creation of posts falls outside the purview of Pay Revision. The Registrar General (Respondent) counters that the recommendations were considered, with Ext.P14 and Annexure A detailing anomalies; the Government’s 28.04.2018 letter rejects the two-post proposal. The Petitioners rely on Supreme Court authority, notably State of Rajasthan and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra and Others (2019(4) SCT 360(SC)), to stress comity, institutional integrity, and dialogue between constitutional functionaries; the High Court is urged to ensure functional needs of the Court are met. The petitioner also cites RTI information showing the Tourism Department revised posts to four, undermining the Government’s stance. The court ultimately holds that no valid basis exists to deny the Chief Justice’s recommendations and directs the Government to grant concurrence and issue orders, expeditiously and within two months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 229 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 229(2) of the Constitution of IndiaRight to Information Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Comity between different institutions working under the Constitution
  • Institutional integrity of one while respecting the functional domain of the other
  • Dialogue of governance between high constitutional functionaries

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the Chief Justice’s recommendations for two additional Head Chauffeur posts must be acted upon. They invoke Article 229(2) and the Supreme Court’s State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra to emphasize comity and dialogue between constitutional functionaries. They point to the records showing the Chief Justice’s Rules and the Government’s partial acceptance, arguing that post-creation is essential for the High Court’s functional needs and is not merely a pay issue. They bring RTI-revealed data indicating higher post counts in other departments (Tourism), undermining the Government’s justification. They seek a direction to grant concurrence to the Chief Justice’s recommendations (Ext.P14; Ext.R3(e)) and prompt issuance of orders."

Contentions of Respondents

The Government argues that creation of posts is not a Pay Revision issue and that the recommendations cannot be accepted; reliance is placed on Government letter dated 28.04.2018, which declined the two-post proposal. The respondents contend that the executive branch is responsible for posts and budgetary matters, and that the decision was within the purview of policy and Pay Revision, not post creation. The State also points to procedural and constitutional constraints while emphasizing the need to maintain budgetary and statutory boundaries.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Rajasthan and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra and Others2019(4)SCT360(SC)PositiveCited to articulate the constitutional obligation of the Government to consider Supreme Court guidance under Article 229(2) and to promote comity between constitutional functionaries; used to support the proposition that recommendations cannot be merely dismissed and must be given due consideration.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against The Chauffeurs of the High Court of Kerala v State of Kerala and High Court of Kerala, represented by its Registrar General and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.23254 OF 2016(R)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 P.K.HARIKUMAR, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **2 G.ANILKUMAR, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **3 N.K.HARIDAS, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **4 S.MADHUSUDANAN, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **5 E.K.KUNHIKANNAN, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **6 M.RAJAN, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031.** - **7 K.P.SUNILKUMAR, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **8 SHIBU C.K., CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **9 K.K.NAZAR, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031.** - **10 P.KRISHNAMOORTHI, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** WPC 23254/16 2 - **11 K.DEVADASAN, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031.** - **12 U.K.RAJASEKHARAN, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **13 A.V.RADHESHYAM, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **14 R.REGHUNATHAN PILLAI, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **15 MANOJ D, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031.** - **16 SANTHOSH K.J, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **17 S.MONEY, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **18 JALESH V.K, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031.** - **19 JIFI ABRAHAM, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **20 GIRI V.K, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031.** - **21 ANILKUMAR S, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031.** WPC 23254/16 3 - **22 P.D.ANTONY, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031.** - **23 BIJISH V.C, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.** - **24 BINU J, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031.** - **25 E.S.NOUFAL, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031.** - **26 RAJESH M.S, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.** - **2 HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN-682 031.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.) SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE – GP SMT.BHARGAVI – SC - HC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 23254/16 4 ## **JUDGMENT** The Chauffeurs of the High Court of Kerala are the petitioners in this writ petition and they seek various reliefs. 2. However, on account of efflux of time and certain developments pending this _lis_ , the sole question that survives is as to whether the recommendations of the Honourable the Chief Justice, for sanctioning two additional posts of Head Chauffeurs, have been properly dealt with by the Government, while they rejected it. 3. The records show that the Honourable Chief Justice framed Rules under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and forwarded the same to the Government under the provisions of Article 229(2) of the Constitution. It transpires that Government acceded to many of the recommendations therein, but certain anomalies remained with respect to others; and WPC 23254/16 5 this led to the Registrar General of this Court to issue Ext.R2(b) letter, dated 17.07.2018, to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government, pointing out this and calling upon the Government to reconsider those recommendations of the Honourable Chief Justice, which had been declined or not considered, enclosing the list of such anomalies thereto as Annexure(A). 4. One among the anomalies mentioned in Annexure(A) to Ext.R2(e) was with reference to the number of posts of Head Chauffeurs to be increased from one to three. However, in spite of this letter, no action was taken by the Government, but filed a counter affidavit on record, wherein, they adopt the stand that creation of posts does not come under the purview of Pay Revision and therefore, that the recommendations of the Honourable Chief Justice cannot be accepted. WPC 23254/16 6 5. The Registrar General of the High Court, on the other hand, has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, various recommendations made by the Honourable the Chief Justice have been touched upon and those with respect to creation of two posts of Head Chauffeurs are available in paragraph 12 thereof, which is extracted for ease of reference as under: 12. The recommendation made by the committee treating non-sanctioning of two posts of Head Chauffeurs, as an anomaly was not accepted by the Government. On the other hand, Government by a letter dated 28.04.2018, rejected the proposal for sanctioning of two post of Head Chauffeurs in the High Court stating that, “Creation of posts is not an issue referred to Pay Revision Commission and does not come under the purview of pay revision. Hence the proposal stands rejected. A True copy of that Government letter dated 28.04.2018 is produced **-** herewith and marked as **Exhibit R2(d)** for identification. At present the only anomaly that remains to be rectified as far as Chauffeurs are concerned is the one relating to non sanctioning of 2 posts of Head Chauffeurs. 6. I have heard Sri.V.Varghese – learned WPC 23254/16 7 counsel appearing for the petitioners; Smt.V.P.Seemanthini, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Bhargavi P. - appearing on behalf of the High Court of Kerala and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala. 7. When I proceed to consider the dialectical contentions of the parties as recorded afore, I must bear in mind that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has spoken exhaustively on the manner in which the Government is expected to act under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India in **State of Rajasthan and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra and Others** **[2019(4)SCT360(SC)]** . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it apodictic that the proviso to Article 229(2) of the Constitution does not reflect ' _an architecture of hierarchy_ ' and that ' _the correct constitutional approach is_ WPC 23254/16 8 _one of comity between different institutions working under the Constitution_ '. The Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to further say that ' _the emphasis is not on the supremacy of one institution or demarcating the boundaries of the other .... but about ensuring institutional integrity of one while_ _respecting the functional domain of the other_ '. The judgment makes it limpid that the constitutional provisions are meant ' _to facilitate dialogue of governance between high constitutional functionary and that a healthy dialogue, perhaps even a debate is necessary for an efficient constitutional polity_ '. 8. The opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is, therefore, unmistakable that Government cannot sit over the recommendations made by the Honourable Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution, as if it is a superior or an appellate authority; but what WPC 23254/16 9 is necessary is an approach of comity in considering the recommendations within the proviso to the said Article. 9. When one applies the views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of this case, it becomes perspicuous that the sole reason why the posts, as recommended by the Honourable Chief Justice, have been declined is because Government feels that said recommendations are 'not within the purview of the Pay Revision', but it fails to take into account the fact that these were made also taking into account the functional requirements as far as the High Court is concerned. 10. It is here that the emphatic holdings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ramesh Chandra Mundra** (supra) comes into play and I am certainly of the view that the stand now adopted by the Government cannot, therefore, WPC 23254/16 10 appeal to this Court in any manner whatsoever. 11. That apart, the petitioners have now produced on record certain information which have received under the Right to Information Act and this shows that, in the Tourism Department of the Government of Kerala, the number of posts of Head Chauffeurs have been revised to four. 12. I cannot, therefore, find any reason why the Government should now stick on to their position that creation of Head Chauffeurs in the cadre of the High Court is not within the confines of the Pay Revision and cannot be then granted. I am left with no doubt that this cannot obtain favour in law and therefore, deem it necessary to allow this Writ Petition to that extent. In the afore circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed and the Government is directed to grant concurrence to the WPC 23254/16 11 recommendations of the Honourable Chief Justice with respect to the posts of Head Chauffeurs, as contained in Ext.P14 and reiterated through Ext.R3(e), and to issue appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 23254/16 12 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23254/2016 ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: |EXHIBIT-P1:|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF| |---|---| ||THE KERALA HIGH COURT SERVICE RULES| ||2007.| |EXHIBIT-P2:|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A2-| ||76452/2014 DATED 25.09.2014.| |EXHIBIT-P3:|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||04.03.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.22364/2006| ||OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.| |EXHIBIT-P4:|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||21.07.2008 IN W.A.NO.1505/2008 OF| ||THIS HON'BLE COURT.| |EXHIBIT-P5:|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||25.01.2010 IN SLP NO.C.C.21584/2009| ||OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF| ||INDIA.| |EXHIBIT-P6:|TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)| ||NO.48/2010/HOME DATED 15.02.2010.| |EXHIBIT-P6(A):|TRUE COPY OF G.O.| ||(MS)NO.257/2011/HOME DATED| ||18.11.2011.| |EXHIBIT-P7:|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.| ||(MS)NO.553/2011(22)/FIN DATED| ||18.11.2011.| |EXHIBIT-P8:|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.| ||(MS)NO.412/2012/(107)/FIN DATED| ||23.07.2012.| |EXHIBIT-P9:|TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER| ||NO.45186/C2/2012/HOME DATED| ||18.03.2013.| |EXHIBIT-P10:|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J5-| ||23685/2012/FW DATED 18.04.2013 OF| ||THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| WPC 23254/16 13 |EXHIBIT-P11:|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.| |---|---| ||(RT)NO.2095/2014/HOME DATED| ||25.07.2014.| |EXHIBIT-P12:|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.| ||(MS)NO.35/2015/FIN DATED 16.01.2015.| |EXHIBIT-P13:|TRUE COPY OF ERRATUM AND ADDENDUM TO| ||EXT.P12.| |EXHIBIT-P14:|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER| ||D.O.NO.FW/J3-49631/2014 DATED| ||06.11.2015.| |EXHIBIT-P15:|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.| ||(P)NO.180/2016/HOME DATED 20.06.2016| ||ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF| ||APPENDIX-I AND II.| |EXHIBIT-P16:|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FW/J3-| ||49631/2014 DATED 22.06.2016 OF THE| ||2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT-P17:|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION| ||DATED 29.06.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE| ||PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT-P18:|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF| ||THE G.O.(P) NO.7/2016/FIN. DATED| ||20.01.2016.| |EXHIBIT-P19:|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-| ||91286/2010 (2) DATED 31.01.2012 OF| ||THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT-P20:|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-| ||91286/2010(2) DATED 01.04.2011 OF| ||THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT-P21:|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-| ||18573/2012 DATED 24.08.2012 OF THE| ||2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT-P22:|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-| WPC 23254/16 14 91286/2010 DATED 11.06.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P23: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A214719/2005(3) DATED 17.12.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P24: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A291286/2010 DATED 18.10.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P25: TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY SLIP OF THE 8TH PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2016. EXHIBIT-P26: TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF PETITIONER NO.22. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: - EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.19/2018/HOME DATED 28.04.2018 - EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE HIGH COURT CHAUFFEURS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT DATED 04.10.2013. - EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.FW/J3-49631-2014 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. - EXHIBIT R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT R2(d) A TRUE COPY OF G.O(p) NO.19/2018/HOME DATED 28.04.2018. EXHIBIT R2(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.FW3-49631/2014 DATED 17.07.2018.