ORDER
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. The Association of Personal Secretaries to the Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Court Masters has filed this writ petition seeking pay scale on par with the Section Officers of the Strictly Confidential Branch of the Secretariat of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Originally when the writ petition was presented in this Court on 10-2-2000, the prayer read:
“For the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner herein prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issued an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the fourth respondent in not considering the representation dated 10-4-1998 submitted by this Association and in not granting the reliefs prayed for therein is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant equal cadre with that of the Section Officers (Confidential) of GAD and Home Departments of the A.P. Secretariat and grant scale of Rs.3310-110-3750-230-4400-160-5200-190-6150-230-6840/- in the revised scale of pay of 1992 and other allowances on par with the Section Officers (Confidential) of the A.P. Secretariat and fix the scale of pay and other allowances on that basis in the revised scale of 1999 and also to grant compensatory allowance in proportion to the salary for the duties being performed by the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries on public holidays and Sundays in conformity with the A.P. High Court Standing Orders with effect from 1-4-1999, the date of the Report of the Pay Revision Commissioner, 1999 coming into force giving the monetary benefit to the employees and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. Subsequently, the petitioner by way of WPMP No.2898 of 2001 sought amendment of the prayer and the Court allowed that WPMP on 6-6-2001 permitting the petitioner to amend the prayer. The amended prayer reads:
“For the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner herein prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly on in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the recommendation of the fourth respondent in not equating the category of the Personal Secretaries and Court Masters with that of the Section Officers (SC) of the Secretariat as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant equal cadre with that of the Section Officers (Confidential) of GAD and Home Departments of the A.P Secretariat and grant scale of Rs.3310-110-3750-230-4400-160-5200-190-6150-230-6840/- in the revised scale of pay of 1992 and other allowances on par with the Section Officers (Confidential) of the A.P. Secretariat and fix the scale of pay and other allowances on that basis in the revised scale of 1999 and also to grant compensatory allowance in proportion to the salary for the duties being performed by the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries on public holidays and Sundays in conformity with the A.P. High Court Standing Orders with effect from 1-4-1999, the date of the Report of the Pay Revision Commissioner, 1999 coming into force giving the monetary benefit to the employees and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
3. The case of the petitioner-association, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner’s association was formed in the year 1978 and that association is recognised by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and since its inception, the association has been espousing the causes of its members before the concerned authorities in improving the terms and conditions of their service. The Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Hon’ble Judges are in the cadre of Gazetted Officers and their mode of appointment and service conditions are governed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975 and their duties and responsibilities are ordained by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Standing Orders, 1992. According to Rule 4 of the said rules, the Honourable the Chief Justice is the appointing authority. As per clauses (d) of Rule 7 of the said rules, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the said post is a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce or Law of a University in India and he should have passed Shorthand High Speed Examination of 180 words per minute and also Typewriting Higher Grade Examination both in English conducted by A.P. State Board of Technical Education and Training, Hyderabad. In practice, however, the candidates holding a degree in law are being preferred. The mode of appointment to the post is given in the table mentioned under Rule 5 against ‘Category 6’, viz., (i) by direct recruitment; (ii) by promotion or transfer from any other service. In practice, the High Court has been recruiting and appointing the Personal Secretaries to the Honourable Judges by conducting a test and on verification of their confidential reports and antecedents and only those who have been found to have such standards as per the requirements of the High Court are appointed. Any person, whatever higher qualifications he may possess, must come out successful in the test conducted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and his confidential records and antecedents must be found satisfactory for his appointment as Court Master and Personal Secretary. The duties and responsibilities of the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries are prescribed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Standing Orders. The duties, among other things, include that the Personal Secretaries of the Hon’ble Judges must attend the residences of the Honourable Judges of the High Court in the mornings, evenings and on all public holidays including Sundays whenever their services are required by the Honourable Judges; they must also attend to all the works entrusted by the Honourable Judges and should also attend to the Court work in the afternoon session. Their working hours are not merely between 10-30 a.m., and 5-00 p.m., with half-an-hour lunch break as in the case of other Government employees, but extend to the hours beyond the prescribed working hours depending upon the work entrusted by the Honourable Judges; their duty includes to take down the dictations of judgments relating to various kinds of cases from the Honourable Judges viz., writ petitions, civil and criminal appeals including most confidential and sensitive matters and also matters involving administrative appeals filed by the employees of lower Courts questioning the punishments imposed on them etc. They are also required to attend to the works of noting down the minutes of the meetings of the Honourable Judges, relating to various matters on the administrative side, dealing with the official correspondence of the Honourable Judges, supervising the duties of the members of the staff posted at the residences of the Honourable Judges and corresponding with the various sections of the Court and other offices in some important matters on behalf of the Honourable Judges as directed by them. Thus, the Personal Secretaries to the Honourable Judges are discharging the duties of most confidential and responsible nature and working even beyond the office hours prescribed and also on Sundays and public holidays as per the requirement of the Honourable Judges.
4. As regards the Court Masters, it is true they will normally work between 10-30 a.m., and 5-00 p.m., attending to the Court’s work between 10-30 a.m., and 1-30 p.m., and transcribing the matters taken down in the Court in the afternoon session. They are posted as Personal Secretaries to the Honourable Judges whenever the Personal Secretaries go on leave and during such periods they will perform all the duties and functions of the Personal Secretaries. The Court Masters are also being posted for duties during holidays in the High Court to meet any emergent situation or at the residence office of the Honourable Judges if there is any requisition in that regard. Court Masters are also deputed to note down the lectures in the A.P. Judicial Academy and Speeches in the pubic functions of the VVIPs like the Honourable the Chief Justice of India and other Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court and also those who are heading the Commissions at the Central Government level in public functions. The duties of Personal Secretaries and the Court Masters arc interchangeable as per the administrative convenience of the High Court. The Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Honourable Judges have been performing all the enumerated duties and functions as ordained by the A.P. High Court Standing Orders and in obedience to the directions of the Honourable Judges issued from time to time.
5. By G.O. Ms. No. 148, Home (Cts.C) Department, dated 21-4-1988 and also the Notification No.90-B Special dated 26-4-1988 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the cadre of the Court Masters and the Personal Secretaries has been equated with that of the Section Officers of general category of the A.P. Secretariat for the purpose of pay and allowances. When the matter stood thus, the Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed the Pay Commission, the 4th respondent herein for recommending for fixation of pay and allowances of the employees under whose purview the Andhra Pradesh High Court employees also would fall. The petitioner association submitted a representation dated 10-4-1988 through the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the Pay Revision Commissioner requesting to equate the cadre of the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Honourable Judges with that of the Section Officers (Confidential) of GAD and Home Departments of the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat and grant the consequential relief of scale of pay i.e., 3310-110-3750-230-4400-160-5200-190-6150-230-6840/- and allowances in the revised scale of 1992 on par with them. In that representation, another request was also made for sanctioning compensatory allowance for the duties being performed on Sundays and public holidays in proportion to the salary of the respective Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Honourable Judges.
6. The petitioner-association simultaneously on 10-4-1998 submitted a separate representation to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for amendment of A.P. High Court Service Rules equating the cadre of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Hon’ble Judges with that of the Section Officers (Confidential) of GAD and Home Department of the A.P. Secretariat for the purpose of pay and allowances. The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court, who is the appointing authority of the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Hon’ble Judges, on consideration of the above representation of the petitioner-association, forwarded the same to the Government for consideration after seeing the merits in the representation.
7. In the premise of the above factual background this writ petition was filed seeking the reliefs already noticed above.
8. In response to Rule Nisi, on behalf of the respondents two counter affidavits, one in the month of August, 2000 (date is not mentioned) and another titled as ‘additional counter-affidavit’ dated 19-6-2001 opposing the relief sought by the petitioner-association have been filed. The petitioner-association has also filed a reply affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in August, 2000.
9. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, to put it briefly, is as follows: The Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges and the Section Officers (Strictly Confidential), hereafter referred to as ‘Section Officers (SC)’, branch of the Secretariat were never treated as equals and the pay scale attached to the post of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to Judges and Section Officers (SC) of the GA Department has always been different and higher pay scale has been attached to the post of Section Officer (SC) in the Pay Revisions effected in the years 1974, 1978, 1986, 1993 and 1999. The Section Officers (SC) of the Secretariat are being appointed from the category of Section Officers after they are qualified in a test conducted for the purpose whereas the post of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges has to be filled up by promotion from any category in Annexure II of the A.P High Court Service Rules which comprises of translators, Deputy Section Officers, Assistant Section Officers, Assistants, Readers, Examiners, Typists, Copyists other than the Over seer or by direct recruitment or by way of transfer from any other service and the minimum qualification is a degree and pass in Shorthand examination with speed of 180 words per minute (wpm) and Typewriting English in Higher Grade. The claim of the petitioner-association in seeking the pay scale on par with the Section Officers (SC) of the Secretariat was considered by the Pay Commission and the claim has been rejected by the Pay Commission for valid and good reasons. The role of the Court in the matter of equation of the posts or equation of pay is very much circumscribe and limited and the decision taken by the executive Government in that regard cannot be interfered with lightly by the Courts. The respondents, in the additional counter-affidavit, reiterated the above contentions. In the additional counter-affidavit, however, it is stated that the State Government has constituted an ‘Anomalies Committee’ to look into the anomalies arising out of the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commissioner, 1999 and it is open for the petitioner-association to represent their grievance before the said committee.
10. It is true that, generally speaking, equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government and such complex issues should be left to the wisdom of the expert bodies like Pay Commission because, the process of equation of posts and equation of pay necessarily involves, among other things, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts and the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the posts. That is what has been emphasised by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions including in Rajalakshmiah v. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 993, State of U.P. v. J.P. Chourasia, AIR 1989 SC 90, Secretary Finance Department v. W.B. Registration Service Association, , and K. Vasudevan Nair v. Union of India, . However, in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, , and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. IAAI, , it can safely be said that since equal protection guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of ‘State action’, that guarantee would extend not only when an individual is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of his rights or in the matter of imposing liabilities upon him, but also in the matter of granting privileges, e.g., granting licences for entering into any business, inviting tenders for entering into a contract relating to Government business or issuing quotas, giving jobs, prescribing terms and conditions of services like pay scales and allowances and in all these cases the principle is the same. In Chinranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, , the Supreme Court held that there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is the same. Further in Ramana Dayaram Shetty’s case (supra), the Apex Court has opined the ‘State action’ must not be arbitrary in classifying persons or things, but must be based on valid principle which itself must not be irrational or discriminatory. It is not to state that the principles of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances, in the same position, as the varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. What Article 14 prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation as held by the Apex Court in Budhan Chowdary v. Stale of Bihar, . If the State takes care to reasonably classify persons for legislative purposes and if it deals equally with all persons belonging to a ‘well defined class’, it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that the law does not apply to other persons. It is also true that Article 14 does not insist that a legislative classification should be scientifically perfect or logically complete. The Court would not interfere normally unless the classification results in pronounced inequality. At the same time it is pertinent to note, as held by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Roshana T.P. Kumari, , that the Courts would not uphold miniclassification where the differences between the classes or categories or persons are inconsequential and marginal. In order to sustain any classification on the touch-stone of Article 14 postulates, it is well settled, that two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that, that differential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration.
11. When a law is challenged as denying equal protection, the question for determination by the Court is not whether it has resulted in inequality, but whether there is some difference which bears a just and reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment or inequality of burden does not per se amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause incorporated in Article 14 of the Constitution. To attract the operation of that clause, it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation is palpably arbitrary and unreasonable and the classification does not rest on any rational basis having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the premise of the above well settled principles flowing from the equal protection clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution, let us proceed to examine the grievance of the petitioner-association.
12. To put it in a nut shell, the case of the petitioner-association is that the duties, responsibilities, functions and the confidentiality attached to the post of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges are onerous, responsible involving more hard work and absolute confidentiality. In fact, the petitioner-association claims that the duties and functions attached to the post of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges are more onerous than the duties and functions attached to the post of Section Officer (SC) of the Secretariat. In order to appreciate this claim of the petitioner-association, it may be appropriate at the threshold to notice the duties, responsibilities and functions attached to the post of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges. It is pertinent to notice that the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court is the appointing authority for Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges. The applicants to the posts, either by way of direct recruitment or by way of transfer or by way of promotion, are thoroughly screened either by the Chief Justice himself or by a committee of Judges appointed by him. The candidates for the posts are selected by conducting test and interview and on verification of their confidential reports and antecedents, only those candidates who have been found to have the required standards in terms of responsibility, accountability, competency and confidentiality are selected and appointed to the posts. In other words, any person whatever higher qualification he may possess, if he does not possess the above noticed qualities/values, he will not be qualified to be appointed for the post. The duties and responsibilities of the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges are prescribed by the A.P. High Court Standing Orders. Standing Order, 686 framed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 1992 which holds the field reads-
STANDING ORDERS OF THE HIGH COURT
OF ANDHRA PRADESH -1992
686. Duties of Personal Secretaries to the Hon’ble Judges and Court Masters.
Personal Secretaries:
1. They shall attend the High Court at 1-30 p.m., on all Court working days and report to the Section Officer.
2. They shall attend the Courts in the afternoon, take down dictations in shorthand, transcribe and circulate the judgments or orders to the Hon’ble Judges concerned for signatures.
3. They shall attend that residences of Hon’ble Judges in the mornings and take down dictations from Hon’ble Judges.
4. They shall attend the residences of the Hon’ble Judges in the evenings as and when required and also on holidays to take down dictations.
5. They need not attend the office on Saturdays. However, they will attend the office on Saturdays as per the directions of the Hon’ble Judges and due to exigencies of work.
6. When the Hon’ble Judges are out of station and when the Personal Secretaries are not attending the residences of the Hon’ble Judges, the Personal Secretaries shall attend themselves for duty, at 10-15 a.m., in the office and make themselves available for being posted to Courts.
7. They shall invariably enter in the circulation register all the judgments and orders they bring to the section for transcription.
Court Masters:
1. The Court Masters shall attend the office daily at 10-15 a.m., sharp and attend the Courts in the forenoon as directed by the Section Officer.
2. They shall take down dictation in the Courts and attend to the transcription.
3. They shall circulate the transcribed matter to the residence of the Hon’ble Judges concerned with three days from the date of their taking down dictation for the signatures of the Hon’ble Judges.
4. They shall transcribe the urgent matters then and there and make them ready for signatures of the Hon’ble Judges.
5. They shall also attend the Court in the afternoon as and when directed by the Section Officer.
6. They shall invariable enter all the judgments or orders brought to the section for transcription in the Circulation Register.
7. Whenever judgments or orders are partly dictated, they shall circulate the last portion of the said dictation to the concerned Courts so as to enable the Hon’ble Judges to complete the remaining portion of the dictation.
8. They shall attend the residences of the Hon’ble Judges as and when required.
13. As regards the nature of the duties and functions which the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries are called upon to discharge in their day to day functions, they are set out by the petitioner-association in paras 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. They read –
“……the duties and responsibilities of the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries are prescribed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Standing Orders which ordain that the Personal Secretaries to the Hon’ble Judges must attend the residences of the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court in the mornings, evenings and on all public holidays including Sundays whenever their services are required by the Hon’ble Judges. They must also attend to all the works entrusted by the Hon’ble Judges and should also attend to the Court work in the afternoon session. I submit that their working hours are not merely between 10-30 a.m., to 5-00 p.m., with half-an-hour lunch break as in the case of other Government employees, but extend to the hours beyond the prescribed working hours depending upon work entrusted by the Hon’ble Judges. Their important duty is to take down the dictations of judgments relating to various kinds of cases from the Hon’ble Judges viz., writ petitions, civil and criminal appeals including most confidential and sensitive matters and also matters involving administrative appeals filed by employees of lower Courts questioning the punishments imposed on them etc. They also attend to the works of noting down the minutes of the meetings of the Hon’ble Judges relating to various matters on the administrative side, dealing with the official correspondence of the Hon’ble Judges, supervising the duties of the members of the staff posted at the residence of the Hon’ble Judges and corresponding with various sections of the Court and other offices in some important matters on behalf of the Hon’ble Judges as dictated by them. I therefore, submit that the Personal Secretaries to the Hon’ble Judges are discharging the duties of most confidential nature and working even beyond the office hours prescribed and also on Sundays and public holidays as per the requirement of the Hon’ble Judges which are duties prescribed by the A.P. High Court Standing Orders. The Court Masters will normally work between 10-30 a.m. and 5-00 p.m., attending to the Court work between 10-30 a.m., and 1-30 p.m., transcribing the matters taken down in the Court in the afternoon session. They will be posted as Personal Secretaries to the Hon’ble Judges whenever the Personal Secretaries go on leave and during such periods they will perform all the duties of the Personal Secretaries. Court Masters are also being posted for duties on holidays in the High Court to meet any emergent situation. Court Masters are also deputed to note down the lectures in the Judicial Academy and speeches in the public functions of VVIPs like the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and other Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and also those who are heading the Commissions at the Central Government level. The duties of Personal Secretaries and Court Masters are interchangeable as per the administrative convenience of the High Court.
I submit that the Court Masters and the Personal Secretaries to the Hon’ble Judges have been performing all the above said duties with utmost devotion and dedication and ordained by the A.P. High Court Standing Orders and in obedience to the directions of the Hon’ble Judges. The said fact was taken judicial notice of by a Division Bench of this Court in WP Nos. 17099 of 1992 and 10770 of 1997 filed for enhancement of conveyance charges for attending the residences of the Hon’ble Judges on official duties in the following words-
“There is no doubt whatsoever that the Court Masters attached to the Hon’ble Judges who are called Secretaries to the Judges, are doing commendable work. They visit the residences of the Hon’ble Judges. They also make visits even on holidays.”
14. The claim made by the petitioner-association in paras 5 and 6 is not seriously contested by the respondents in their counter-affidavits. Therefore what transpires from Standing Order, 686 framed by the High Court in 1992 and elaboration of those duties as set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that the posts of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judge carry responsible, arduous, time consuming, and confidential duties and functions. The question to be considered is whether the duties and functions performed by the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges are comparable and similar to the duties and functions attached to the post of Section Officer (SC) in the A.P. Secretariat. Although the petitioner-association in its representation submitted to the 4th respondent-Pay Commission dated 10-4-1998 had set out the duties and functions attached to the posts in Standing Order 686 in detail, quite surprisingly, the Pay Commission summarily rejected the claim of the petitioner-association by observing:–
“According to the A.P. High Court Service Rules, 1975, appointment to these categories is by direct recruitment and by promotion from any category in Division II other than Category 2 and also by transfer from any other service. The qualification prescribed for appointment is graduation and pass in the Government Technical Examination.
15. A careful perusal of the above observation of the Pay Commission shows that the claim of the petitioner-association for parity with that of the Section Officer (SC) of the Secretariat was turned down mainly on the ground that additional qualifications are prescribed for recruitment to the post of Section Officers (SC). No other reasons are given by the Pay Commission to turn down the request of the petitioner-association. The Commission has not at all adverted to or considered the nature of the duties and responsibilities and the confidentiality attached to the post of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges. In addition to the reason set out by the Pay Commission in the above extracted portion of the report, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges were never equated with Section Officers (SC) of the Secretariat at any point of time and the Section Officers (SC) of the Secretariat are being appointed from the category of Section Officers after they are qualified in a test conducted for that purpose. The counter affidavit averments give an impression that an applicant to the post of Section Officer (SC) before he is appointed to that post is required to undergo an onerous and important test and that fact makes him distinct and separate from the applicant for the post of Court Master and Personal Secretary to the Judge, which post is already equated to the post of Section Officer in the Secretariat. The question is whether this assumption on the part of the respondents is justified. Although in more than one place in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that a special test is being conducted for the Section Officers (general) in order to select candidates for the post of Section Officers (SC), nowhere the counter-affidavits disclose the nature of the test that is being conducted.
16. The Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges working in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh are in the cadre of Gazetted Officers and the mode of appointment and service conditions are governed by A.P. High Court Service Rules, 1975. According to Rule 4 of the said rules, Chief Justice is the appointing authority. As per clause (d) Rule 7 of the rules, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the said post is a Degree in Arts or Science or Commerce or Law of any recognised University in India and he should have passed Shorthand high speed examination of 180 WPM and also Typewriting Higher Grade in English conducted by the A.P. State Board of Technical Education and Training. Thus, for a candidate to be eligible for recruitment to the post of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges, possession of the educational qualification of a Degree of any University and the additional qualification of a pass in Shorthand English High speed in 180 WPM and Typewriting Grade examination in English are essential. It is also pertinent to notice that in practice the High Court always prefers candidates possessing a Degree in Law for the post. The mode of appointment to the said post is given in the table mentioned in Rule 5 against Category 6 viz., (i) by direct recruitment; (ii) by promotion or transfer from any other service. In practice, however, the High Court is conducting competitive examination as and when vacancies in the said post arise, for the candidates who satisfy the above requirements from the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. For such candidates, a test in Shorthand at the rates of 120 WPM, 150 wpm and 180 WPM will be conducted and the top rankers of such competitive test will be called for oral test and interview to be conducted by the Chief Justice himself or by a committee of Judges constituted by the Chief Justice. Such a committee after screening the confidential files and service registers in the case of candidates belonging to services and examining their knowledge and mental abilities will make final selection. As far as the direct recruits are concerned, if they are selected in written and oral test and interview, they will be given appointment orders only on verification of reports sent by the Police Department about their antecedents. Thus, it is clear that in order to get appointment as Court Master/Personal Secretary to the Judges, a candidate should be a graduate with preferential treatment to be given to a person having a Degree in law and he should also be a high speed writer in English Shorthand and he should possess Typewriting English Higher Grade qualification and also he must be a top ranker in the competitive examination to be held by the High Court and he should also come out successful in the written, oral test and the interview conducted by the Chief Justice himself or the Committee of Judges appointed in that regard. By practice, it is always insisted that the confidential reports and service registers in the case of service candidates or antecedents in the case of direct recruits must be blemishless and clean. Only after going through the above noticed rigorous selection procedure and test, the successful candidates will be appointed to the post of Court Master/Personal Secretary to the Judges. It is pertinent to notice that high constitutional authorities like the Chief Justice himself or the Committee of Judges interview the candidates for the posts in order to satisfy themselves that the candidates selected for the posts do possess the required qualities relating to the conduct, confidentiality apart from efficiency. It is indicative of the fact that the duties and functions attached to the post of Court Master/Personal Secretary to the Judge are onerous, responsible, accountable apart from the fact that they carry strict confidentiality. In para 3 of the counter-affidavit filed in the month of August, 2000, it is stated that the Section Officers (SC) are being appointed from the category of Section Officers (General) after they are qualified in a test conducted for that purpose. As already pointed out that the nature of the test conducted by the Government in selecting the candidates for the post of Section Officers (SC) is not disclosed in the counter-affidavit. Be that as it may even assuming that a test as claimed in the counter affidavit is conducted to select the candidates for the post of Section Officers (SC), that fact itself cannot be a factor on the basis of which a rational classification could be made between the Section Officers (SC) in the Secretariat and the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges in the High Court. As pointed out supra, a candidate for the post of Court Master/Personal Secretary to the Judge also undergoes an arduous test and deep scrutiny at the hands of a constitutional authority like the Chief Justice of the High Court himself or the Committee of his brother Judges as regards the required confidentiality, high merit, arduousness, sincerity etc., involved in the performance of the duties and functions as Court Master/ Personal Secretary to the Judge. We do not find any rational differential on the basis of which the class of Section Officers (SC) could be distinguished from the class of Court Masters/Personal Secretaries to the Judges. In that view of the matter, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner-association by the 4th respondent-Pay Commission is not justified nor rational.
17. It is also contended in the counter-affidavit that the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges were never treated on par with the Section Officers (SC) of the Secretariat in the earlier pay revisions. That may be so. Simply because on earlier occasions, the Pay Commissions treated the two classes differently for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, that fact itself cannot be put forth by the State against the petitioner-association to deny the pay scale admissible to the Section Officers (SC) in the Secretariat in the latest pay revision also, if otherwise there is sufficient materials and evidence on the basis of which a rational classification cannot be made between the class of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges and the class of Section Officers (SC) of the Secretariat and if both of them belong to the same class.
Article 229 reads-
“Article 229(1) Appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct:
Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require that in such case as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be such prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose:
Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State.
(3) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including all salaries, allowances and pension payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the High Court, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund.”
18. In Gurumurthy v. Accountant-General, , the Supreme Court held that the object of this Article is to secure the independence of the High Court, which is essential for the working of the democratic form of Government in the country, by giving the High Court absolute control over its staff, subject only to the limitations imposed by the Article itself and free from interference by the Government. In Union of India v. Pratibha Bonnerjea, , the Supreme Court has opined that not only the High Court Judges but even the staff members of the High Court are insulated from the influence of the executive and the Legislature. Clause (2) of Article 229 empowers the Chief Justice of the High Court to make rules, in the absence of law made by the Legislature of the State, governing the conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court. However, the proviso to clause (2) of Article 229 provides that the rules that may be made by the Chief Justice under clause (2) shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pension, require the approval of the Governor of the State before they can be enforced. That means without such prior approval, such rules or any order made under clause (2) of Article 229 have no validity. On the question of what should be the attitude of the Government when rules are framed by the Chief Justice relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pension, there is lot of case law. By and large the Courts have held that the Government should, ordinarily, accord its approval to the rules made by the Chief Justice.
19. The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthi and others, , has held that one should expect in the fitness of things and in view of the spirit of Article 229 that ordinarily and generally approval should be accorded to the rules framed by the Chief Justice under Article 229(2) of the Constitution relating to the salary, allowances, leave or pension etc., or the service conditions of the officers and servants of the High Court. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, . Further, the Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and another, , in paragraph 25 held-
“25. Since under the Constitution, the Chief Justice has also the power to make rules regulating the conditions of service of the officers and servants of the High Court, it is obvious that he can also prescribe the scale of salary payable for a particular post. This would also include the power to revise the scale of pay. Since such a rule would involve finances, it has been provided in the Constitution that it will require the approval of the Governor which, in other words, means the State Government. This Court in State of A.P. v. Gopalakrishnan Murthi, had expressed the hope that “one should accept in the fitness of things and in view of the spirit of Article 229 that the approval, ordinarily and generally, would be accorded.” This was reiterated by this Court in Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India, . We again reiterate the hope and feel that once the Chief Justice, in the interest of High Court administration, has taken a progressive step specially to ameliorate the service conditions of the officers and staff working under him, the State Government would hardly raise any objection to the sanction of creation of posts or fixation of salary payable for that post or the recommendation for revision of scale of pay in the scale of pay of the equivalent post in the Government has been revised.”
20. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. P.D. Attri and others, , the Supreme Court has opined in para 7 as follows:–
“7. But then the fact remains that when the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court made recommendations to the Governor to redesignate/equate the posts of Senior Transistors and Junior Translators in the Himachal Pradesh High Court to those in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, no decision was communicated which led the respondents to approach the High Court on its judicial side. Recommendations of the Chief Justice of the High Court are to be given due deference and utmost consideration by the State Government. It certainly cannot sleep over the recommendations. Things have now certainly changed after the decision of this Court in Punjab and Haryana High Court v. Sunder Sham Kapoor case, where Revisors in the Punjab and Haryana High Court are to be given benefit of pay scale of Superintendent (Grade II) from 5-8-1980 from which date the respondents are agreeable to the benefits granted to them. We may again observe and commend to the State Governments the following observations of this Court in Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India – .”
“57. So far as the Supreme Court and the High Courts are concerned, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned are empowered to frame rules subject to this that when 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 even the Chief Justice of the High Court have been placed at a higher level 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 straightaway 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.”
21. Article 39(d) directs that the State shall direct its policy towards securing the object of equal pay for equal work for both men and women. ‘Equal pay for equal work’ has been interpreted to be an integral part of the right of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Articles 14 and 16 guarantee the fundamental right to equality before law and equal opportunity in the matter of public employment. Although, as pointed out supra, equation of posts or equation of pay are matters primarily for the executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the Courts, but where the Court finds that all things are equal, where of relevant considerations are the same, the Court cannot permit the Government to extend differential treatment to the similarly circumstanced class or body of persons. The Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, , dealing with the claim of the petitioner therein who was a driver-constable in Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration to the same pay scale attached to the post of other drivers in the services of the Delhi Administration was pleased to observe:–
“The counter-affidavit does not explain how the case of the drivers in the police force is different from that of the drivers in other departments and what special factors weighed in fixing a lower scale of pay for them. Apparently in the view of the respondents, the circumstance that persons belong to different departments of the Government is itself a sufficient circumstance to justify different scales of pay irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities. We cannot accept this view. If this view is to be stretched to its logical conclusion, the scales of pay of officers of the same rank in the Government of India may vary from department to department notwithstanding that their powers, duties and responsibilities are identical. We concede that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for Courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same.”
22. In the light of these authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it becomes imperative for the Government to ordinarily accord approval to the terms and conditions of service framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court by virtue of the power conferred under clause (2) of Article 229. In the instant case, we are constrained to observe that the representation made by the petitioner-association for parity of scale on par with Section Officers (SC) of the Secretariat routed through the High Court did not receive the deserved consideration at the hands of respondents. The respondents ought to have noticed that a similar representation made to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice was also forwarded to the Government for consideration. At the time of hearing, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court also submitted that according to the learned Chief Justice and the High Court, the duties and functions and the confidentiality attached to the post of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges are no way inferior or less responsible in nature compared to that of the Section Officers (SC) in the Secretariat, and on the other hand, it could be said that the duties and functions attached to the post of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Judges are more onerous and arduous involving strict confidentiality than that of the Section Officers (SC) of the Secretariat.
The representation routed though the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court should have received the deserved attention and consideration at the hands of the Government and the Pay Commission in the light of the catena of decisions of the Supreme Court of which few are referred to above. Although this is the ground reality, we cannot straightaway issue mandamus to the respondents to grant the pay scale admissible to Section Officers (SC) of the Secretariat to the Court Masters/Personal Secretaries to the Judges. The Courts have restrained themselves in issuing such directions. For example, though the Supreme Court in T. Gopalakrishnam Murthi’s case (supra), on the facts and in the circumstances of that case, felt that the State Government, could have been well advised to accord approval to the suggestion of the Chief Justice as the suggestion was to grant equal pay scales to the High Court staff with those of equivalent posts in the Secretariat, held that merely because the Government is not right in accepting the Chief Justice’s view and refused to accord approval, that circumstance itself will not be a ground for holding that by a writ of mandamus the Government should be directed to accord the approval. We can only trust and hope that the respondents, while reconsidering the representation of the petitioner-association for parity of scales, would bear in mind the observations made in this judgment and several other judgments of the Apex Court and the representation of the petitioner-association would receive deserved consideration.
23. This takes us to the claim of the petitioner-association for grant of compensatory allowance for the duties being performed by the members of the petitioner-association during the extra time in addition to the work done by them during official working hours as per the Standing Orders of the High Court. It is a part of the duty of the members of the petitioner-association to attend to the residential offices of the Judges
both in the morning and in the evening.
This fact is not denied and cannot be denied.
In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that
conveyance charges are being paid to the
members of the petitioner-association for
attending the residences of the Hon’ble
Judges. It is trite that conveyance charges
are paid to reimburse the amounts spent by
the Court Masters/Personal Secretaries for
travelling to the residences of the Judges
from their residence and for return journey
to their residences. Such conveyance
charges, in our considered opinion, cannot
be equated to that of compensatory allowance
for the extra work done by the members of
the petitioner-association outside the normal
working hours and on holidays. Here again,
the claim of the petitioner-association did
not receive fair and reasonable treatment at
the hands of the Government.
24. In the counter-affidavit dated 19-6-2001, it is stated by the respondents that the Government have constituted an ‘Anomalies Committee’ to look into the anomalies in the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commissioner 1999 and it is open for the petitioner to represent their grievances before the said committee. At the time of hearing also Mr. Prakash Reddy, learned Additional Advocate-General would fairly submit that the said ‘Anomalies Committee’ be directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner-association routed through the Chief Justice of the High Court afresh in the light of the materials placed by the petitioner-association.
25. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we dispose of the writ petition directing the State Government of Andhra Pradesh to place the representation of the petitioner-association dated 10-4-1998 with the recommendations of the High Court before the ‘Anomalies Committee’ constituted by it for its consideration in the first place, and then to take appropriate decision on receipt of the recommendations of the ‘Anomalies Committee’. The petitioner-association is permitted to file additional representation/statement before the Government through the Hon’ble the Chief Justice High Court. It is also permissible for the petitioner-association to place additional materials and evidence in support of its claim. One month time is granted from today to the petitioner-association to file additional statement and produce additional materials and evidence. The Government is directed to carry out the above directions within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the this order. There shall be no order as to costs.