THE HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION, CALCUTTA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

A    THE HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION, CALCUTTA
                            AND ORS.
                                          v.
                      STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

                               NOVEMBER 18, 2003
B
    [S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND G.P. MA THUR, JJ.]


          Constitution of India, I950:

C         Article 229(2)-Draft Calcutta High Court Service Rules-Approval
    by Governor-High Court employees-Revision of pay scales-Draft Rules
    approved by Chief Justice forwarded for approval of Governor-State
    Government not recommending draft rules for approval of Governor-Held,
    the Governor, under Article 229(2) has the power to refasi~ grant of approval,
D   provided there is "very good reason" for the same-Record reveals sufficient
    degree of exchange of ideas between the State Government and the Chief
    Justice but the matter is unresolved due to lack ofconsensus-The Government
    will have to bear in mind the special nature of the work done in the High
    Court of which the Chief Justice and his colleagues alone could really
    appreciate-Therefore, a special Pay Commission consisting of Judges and
E   the Administrators shall be constituted by the Chief Justice in consultation
    with the Government to make a report and on receipt of such report, the
    Chief Justice and the Government shall work out an appropriate formula in
    regard to pay scales to be fixed for High Court employees.

F        Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union ofIndia, (19891
    4 SCC 187; M Gurumoorthy v. Accountant General, Assam & Nagaland,
    (1971) 2 SCC 137 and State of A.P. v. T. Gopal Krishnan Murthy, (19761 2
    sec 883, relied on.
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 134of1999.
G         (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

          Ms. Indra Sawhney for the Petitioners.

          Tara Chandra Shanna, G.S. Chatterjee and Somnath Mukherjee for the

H                                        712
              HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES WELFAREASSON. v. STATE                     713
Respondents.                                                                        A
       The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      The present writ petition seeks to challenge the refusal by the Governor
of West Bengal to grant approval to the draft Calcutta High Court Services
Rules, 1998 under Article 229(2) of the Constitution.                               B
       The brief fact are as follows:-

      In 1995, the Government of West Bengal appointed the 4th Pay
Commission, the Terms of Reference of which included the employees of the
Calcutta High Court. The High Court employees made a representation to the          C
Chief Justice requesting exercise of his power under Article 229. Accordingly,
a Three-Judge Committee was appointed. In the meanwhile, the Government
of West Bengal contacted the Registrar of the High Court for information
about the employees for the purposes of Pay Commission. The Registrar
replied by saying that a Committee has already been set up for his purpose.
The Three Judge Committee submitted its report but expressed doubts about           D
the enforceability of their recommendations in light of clause (2) of Article
229.

      Pursuant to a resolution of the Full Court, a Five-Judge Committee was
set up. The draft Rules proposed by this Committee was approved by the              E
Chief Justice and was fotwarded for approval of the Governor.

      The State Government replied saying that it could not recommend the
said Draft Rules for approval ofthe Governor because:-

        (!)   Creation of new posts is not envisaged by Article 229(2).
                                                                                    F
        (2)   High Court employees have already been included in terms of
              Reference of the 4th Pay Commission with the Court's knowledge
              and consent.

        (3)   It will create unjust inequality and administrative problems.

        (4)   Financial inability.                                                  G
      Hence, the petitioners have filed a writ petition under Article 32
challenging such refusal.                                 ·

      During the pendency of the proceedings, negotiations took place between
the two parties. The Chief Justice and the State Government had several             H
    714                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A discussions on the matter. However, the State Government expressed
    reservations on the ground of financial inability.

          Hence, this matter is unresolved due to lack of consensus.

          The purpose and scope of Article 229 (2) has been discussed and
B   explicated by this Court in a number of cases. In M Gurumoorthy v. Accountant
    General, Assam & Nagaland, [1971] 2 SCC 137, it was held that the Governor's
    approval must be sought because the finances have to be provided by the
    Government and to the extent there is any involvement or expenses, the
    Government has to approve of it. Therefore, the Governor's approval is an
    exception to the power of Chief Justice contemplated by Article 229. It was
C   further held in State ofA.P. v. T. Gopal Krishnan Murthy, [1976] 2 SCC 883,
    that the grant of approval by Governor under Article 229 is not a mere
    formality.

          In the case of Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union
D   of India, [1989] 4 sec 187, it was held that "not only does the Chief Justice
    have to apply his mind to the framing of the Rules but also the Government
    has to apply its mind to the question of approval of the Rules framed by the
    Chief Justice. This condition should be fulfilled and should appear to have
    been so fulfilled from the records of both the Government and the Chief
    Justice. The application of mind will include exchange of thoughts and views
E   between the Government and the Chief Justice and it is highly desirable that
    there should be consensus between the two. The Rules framed by a very high
    dignitary such as the Chief Justice of India should be looked upon with
    respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the
    approval should always be granted."

F         In the instant case, the primary reason for refusal of grant of approval
    by the Governor has been the Government's claim of inability to bear the
    financial burden imposed by the draft rules. The Governor, under Article
    229(2) has the power to refuse grant of approval, provided there is "very good
    reason" for the same it cannot be said that there has been no exchange of
G   views between the Chief Justice and the State Government. The correspondence
    between the State Government and the Chief Justice commencing from
    21.11.1998 reveal sufficient degree of exchange of ideas. During the negotiation
    between the Government and the Chief Justice, both sides expressed their
    respective views on the matter. However there is no meeting point.

H         The Government will have to bear in mind the special nature of the work
           HIGHCOURTEMPLOYEESWELFAREASSON.v. STATE                        715

done in the High Court of which the Chief Jystice and his colleagues alone A
could really appreciate. If the Government does not desire ~~ meet the needs
of the High Court, the administration of the High Court will face severe .crisis.
Hence, a special Pay Commission consisting of Judges and the Administrators
shall be constituted by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Government
to make a report and on receipt of such report, the Chief Ju§ti~e and the
Government shall thrash out the problem and work out an appropriate formula B
in regard to pay scales to be fixed for the High Court employees. Let such
action be taken within 6 months from today.

     List this petition after receipt of the report from the High Court or the
Government.
                                                                                 c
RP.                                                        Matter is pending