JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J.
1. "Separation of powers" amongst three limbs of the State, the executive, the legislature and the Judiciary in all hall marks of the Constitution of India, which is held to be "basic structure" of India. "The edifice of the Constitution is based on "separation of powers". If the Independence of each limb of the State, in any way is affected, there would be a break down of the Constitution.
2. With this prelude, we have to examine the case of the Private Secretaries of this Court, who are drawing the pay scale of Class 1 Officer, i.e., Rs. 10,000-15,200 and staked the claim in the present writ petition for being provided the telephone connections at their residence.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that in the year 1988 the State Government decided that the employees of the State Government would be given the pay scale available to the corresponding status employees under the Central Government. In order to execute the said decision an Equivalence Committee was constituted by the State Government, which submitted its report on 30.4.1989. As there existed various anomalies in the pay structure and the State Government felt difficulties in implementing Its decision to equalize the pay scale of the State employees with that of the Central Government, an Anomaly Committee was constituted, which submitted its report. The State Government Itself took a policy decision "vide Adhyay 2 Adhikar Adesh" to pay central pay scale to the staff of the Allahabad High Court with the approval of the Governor.
4. The Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants Brotherhood filed a Writ Petition Bearing No. 1408 of 1993 claiming pay parity with the corresponding employees of the Delhi High Court. The main thrust of the petitioners of that writ petition was that their case was covered by the decision of Delhi High Court, rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 289 of 1991 in re : A. K. Gulati and another v. Union of India and others, decided on 7.5.1991.
5. In A. K. Gulati (supra), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, while allowing the writ petition, issued a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioners and other Private Secretaries, who are working with the Judges of the Delhi High Court in the appropriate stage, in the pay scale of Rs. 3,000-4.500 with effect from 1st January, 1986. The salary of the petitioners and other Private Secretaries should be fixed within three months from that date and the arrears, if any, should be paid to the petitioners within one month thereafter.
6. In A. K. Gulati (supra), the Delhi High Court was of the view that there was a parity of the pay scale between the Private Secretaries of the Judges of the Court and the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the Government of India and the Chief Secretary. Delhi Administration. When the pay scale of the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the Government of India was revised, there was no reason as to why similar upward revision of the pay scale of the Private Secretaries attached with the Judges of the High Courts should not be made, because the salary of the Judges of the High Court was the same to that of Secretaries to the Government of India. The Delhi High Court also expressed a view that the status and allowances, which are received by the Judges of the High Courts are much above than those of the Secretaries to the Government of India. In addition thereto, the work, which is performed by the Private Secretaries to the Judges, is not less, and in fact more onerous, arduous and confidential in nature.
7. Special Leave Petition, which was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, against the decision of Delhi High Court, was dismissed on 26.8.1991.
8. The Writ Petition Bearing No. 1408 of 1993 in re, Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants Brotherhood v. State of U. P. and another, was allowed on 21.12.1993 by a Division Bench of this Court.
9. Special leave petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which was dismissed.
10. It is really surprising that while Private Secretaries working in U. P. Secretariat as well as Central Secretariat have been provided with official telephone at their residences, but that facility was denied to the petitioners in spite of the fact that the Chief Justice of this Court urged the State Government for the same in the year 1989.
11. The Chief Justice, before recommending the case of the Private Secretaries of this Court, was pleased to make a query from the State Government as to whether the official telephones were provided at the residences of the Private Secretaries, working in U. P. Secretariat or not and the State Government informed the Court that official telephones have been provided at the residences of Private Secretaries, working in the U. P. Secretariat. Only then the representations made by the Private Secretaries dated 30.10.1989 and 27.2.1989 were recommended.
12. By means of the D. O. No. 5550 DR (P) dated April 30. 1990, Sri A. S. Tripathi, the then Registrar of the High Court sent a letter to the Judicial Secretary and L.R. to Government of U. P., asking him to get Rs. 5,70,000 sanctioned for installation of telephone connections at the residences of Private Secretaries.
13. Installation of official telephone connections, at the residences of the Private Secretaries, is not only to the advantage of the Private Secretaries only, but it is for the advantage of Judges as well, as it will be easier for them to call their Private Secretaries on telephone to come to their residences for dictation of the judgments or other official work. After the office hours are over, the Judges feel difficulty in contacting, their Private Secretaries in discharge of their duties and the work of the Court suffers. Installation of telephone connections at the residences of Private Secretaries will also add to efficiency of the Judges in discharge of their duties to dispense with justice.
14. It is really surprising that the Private Secretary attached to the Registrar of this Court, since long had been provided with official telephone at his residence and the High Court had been paying the bill from the High Court fund, but the Private" Secretaries attached to the Judges, have not been provided that facility.
15. Thirty four Private Secretaries of this Court themselves have got telephones -Installed at their residences in order to facilitate convenience to the Judges for the purpose of carrying out the instructions of Judges on telephone and complied with their orders and instructions.
16. The charges for Installation of telephone connections, which the thirty four Private Secretaries have incurred, may not be paid either by the High Court or by the State Government. The maximum number of calls, which the Private Secretaries can make, can be regulated by the Chief Justice and the bill can be paid by the High Court from the funds.
which may be made available to the High Court by the State Government. The petitioners themselves stated in the writ petition that although the S.T.D. facility should be made available to them on payment of charges.
17. In view of the submission, which the petitioners have made, the expenses in installation of the telephone connections at the residences of the Private Secretaries, who did not get the telephones installed at their residences, has been reduced to a considerable strength.
18. It was contended from the side of the petitioners that the work which they perform is not less in comparison to the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the State Government, Central Government and Registrar of this Court, but in fact the work of the Private Secretaries of this Court are more arduous and confidential in nature, but they have been discriminated.
19. On 17.5.1999, a Division Bench of this Court, considering the alleged discrimination meted out to the petitioners, issued an interim mandamus in the following words :
"We are prima facie in agreement with the prayer of the petitioners. It is no doubt true that the functioning of the Hon'ble Judges ts difficult without providing telephone connections to the Private Secretaries at their residences from High Court funds, since the Hon'ble Judges often have to contact their Private Secretaries in connection with various matters after Court hours and on holidays.
In the circumstances, we issue an interim mandamus to the respondents to provide official telephone connections to the Private Secretaries of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court at their residences from the High Court funds and to make regular payment of bills thereof or show cause within six weeks. The respondents may file counter-affidavit within six weeks.
20. It was urged that grant of telephone facility at the expenses of the State exchequer involves financial implication. No Rule has been framed by the Chief Justice of this Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, therefore, in absence of the same there was no occasion for the grant of the approval upon the same by the Governor to U. P. under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India, hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
21. It was also averred in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners have nowhere pleaded in the writ petition that any expert body or committee duly constituted in accordance with law either by the State Government or by the Chief Justice of this Court has ever gone into the various aspects of the matter, therefore, unless and until the demand put forth by the petitioners was duly considered by the expert committee or body constituted in accordance with law, the writ petition is not maintainable.
22. Reference has been made by the State Government to an old Government Order dated 18.12.1998. wherein it has been provided that any officer, who is having the pay scale of less than Rs. 3700-5000 (revised as Rs. 12000-16500), like the petitioners in the present case, who are having the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 (revised Rs. 10000 to 15200) only, are not entitled to the official telephone facility at their residence except in exceptional, extraordinary and unavoidable circumstances.
23. We fail to understand as to what would be the more extreme and exceptional case than the case of the petitioners. The Private Secretaries in performance of their duties to carry out the instructions of the Judges of this Court, have to make a response by informing them on several matters. Due to non-availability of the official telephone connections, not only their efficiency is marred, but the cause of dispensation of justice by the Judges also suffers. The installation of telephone connections at the residence of Private Secretaries shall be to the advantage of the Judges also, which will help the Judges to dispense with justice.
24. Furthermore, it has nowhere been indicated in the counter-affidavit as to what were the extreme and exceptional circumstances, in which the Private Secretaries attached to the Ministers and the Secretaries to the Government of India have been provided official telephones. The Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the Government of U. P. have been provided the facility of official telephone connections for the purpose of administrative convenience and efficiency. Why the State Government appears to be more concerned with the convenience of the Private Secretaries attached to the Secretaries to the State Government and why that extent of concern has not been shown towards the Private Secretaries of the other limbs of the State, i.e., Judiciary, particularly when the expenditure which the State Government will incur would not be more than few lakhs of rupees. There is no reason as to why the Private Secretary attached to the Registrar should have the facility of the official telephone connection, but the Private Secretaries attached with the Judges of this Court should have no such facility. Denial of such facility, to the Private Secretaries attached with the Judges of this Court, is a clear-cut case of discrimination, which appears to be a writ at large.
25. It is really unfortunate that the recommendation made by the Chief Justice of this Court was lightly brush aside and ignored by the State Government. The majesty of high office, which the Chief Justice holds, cannot be allowed to impair. It was expected from the State Government that the recommendation of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who happens to be the highest functionary of the State on the judicial side ought to have been respected and given due weightage. But it was really unfortunate that minimum courtesy, which was expected from the State Government to send the reply to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, was not shown. The State Government slept over on the recommendation of Hon'ble the Chief Justice for about nine years, which compelled the petitioners to approach this Court on Judicial side.
26. It is a matter of great concern that the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court was not given due weightage and utmost consideration by the State Government.
27. It is true that the Governor under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India cannot be compelled to grant approval to the Rules framed by the Chief Justice relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pension, but the present matter does not relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pension. It pertains only to a facility, which is provided by the State Government to the Private Secretaries attached to the Secretaries to the Government to U. P.
28. Before making a recommendation to the State Government to provide the facility to official telephone connections to the Private Secretaries to the Judges, the Chief Justice Inquired from the State Government as to whether such a facility has been provided to the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the State Government. When the answer was in affirmative, only then the Chief Justice of the High Court, the highest dignitary of the third limb of the State through its registrar made a recommendation. So the discrimination, which was writ at large, in the case of the Private Secretaries attached with the Judges of this Court may be avoided, but the recommendation was not honoured and without indicating any reason the State Government came forward with a lame excuse of dearth of finances as told to this Court by the Advocate General of the State Government on 12.10.1999.
29. We take judicial notice of the fact that the Ministers of the State Government as well as the Chief Minister have been ordering for the provisioning the fund to install statues and memorials in the name of erstwhile politicians, but the State Government has been shirking in its responsibility to provide few lakhs of rupees for providing official telephone connections to the Private Secretaries attached with the Judges of this Court.
30. We are of the view that it was not at all necessary for the Chief Justice to have framed a Rule in that regard and send it for the approval of the Governor as the matter did not pertain to salary, allowance leave or pension. in the instant case, approval of the Governor was not at all necessary for the simple reason that the matter pertains to provision of a facility, which is being enjoyed by the Private Secretaries attached with the Secretaries to the Government of U. P. and which is necessary for the cause of dispensation of justice.
31. The status of the Judges of this Court is much above the status of the Secretaries to the State Government. It is even higher in comparison to the Secretaries to the Central Government. There existed no reason as to why the Private Secretaries attached to the Judges of this Court, who discharge their difficult duties under the umbrella of the Chief Justice, be denied a facility which is available to their counterparts in the U. P. Secretariat.
32. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove. the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to Immediately provide the official telephone connections to the Private Secretaries, attached to the Judges of this Court, at their residences and the telephone bills be paid from the High Court funds. The State Government is directed to provide funds for that purpose within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
33. However, it is provided that the expenses, which the Private Secretaries have incurred in installation of telephone connections be not paid from the High Court funds, but their telephone bills will be paid by the High Court. The Chief Justice of the High Court may fix number of calls, which the Private Secretaries will make. The S.T.D. facility may be provided to the Private Secretaries, but the charges of S.T.D. calls may be paid by the Private Secretaries, if Hon'ble the Chief Justice so desires.