State and ors. Vs. Raghbir Lal Kohli and ors. - Court Judgment

Nirmal Singh, J.

1. Respondents are working as Principal Private Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges of this Court and placed in the pay scale of Rs. 9000-14100/-. They filed writ petition SWP No. 762/03 claiming parity with the Private Secretaries/Principal Private Secretaries working with the Ministers and Ministers of the State in the State Government falling under the J&K; Secretariat (Gazette4 Service). The writ Court vide impugned judgment [2006 (2) JKJ HC-193] dt. l7th of March'06, allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government as under:.Above observations by this Court clearly establish that the petitioners are similarly situate as the Private Secretaries in the Secretariat belong to J&K; Secretariat (Gazetted Service) were. It is also no denial of the fact that the nature of the duties of Private Secretaries of the Judges of the High Court and those working with the Hon'ble Ministers and Minister of State and Head of the departments are same. Duty of the Private Secretaries working with the Hon'ble Judges is more onerous and sensitive. They have to maintain utmost secrecy. Their responsibilities are also atleast equal, if not, more than the Private Secretaries working with the Hon'ble Ministers. Therefore, they cannot be treated differently, separately and with hostility. They have to be treated equally and at par with their counter parts working in the Secretariat. Merely because the State has the financial control over the employees of the judiciary, the State cannot, be permitted to treat similarly situated employees of the High Court and those working in the government differently. The question of their similarity of job already stands adjudicated upon by this Court and the findings have been confirmed by the Apex Court. Therefore, petitioners are to be treated at par with the Private Secretaries working in the Secretariat. No doubt petitioners cannot be inducted into KAS as has been done in case o the Private Secretaries vide Government Order No. 80-GAD/03 dated 16.1.03, but definitely they have to be placed in the pay scale equivalent to the pay scale of the inductees i.e. Rs. 10,000-15200/-....

2. The writ Court further observed as under:

This Government Order clearly establish that an equivalent pay scale i.e. Rs. 10,000-15200 is available in the High Court and there is no reason that the benefit of this pay scale be not allowed to the petitioners. What, designation is to be given when petitioners are given the benefit of higher pay scale, be left to the wisdom of the High Court, but in so far as the financial benefit is concerned State/Respondent is under legal obligation to give the same benefits to the petitioners as has been allowed to the Private Secretaries working in the Secretariat. This petition accordingly succeeds and a direction is issued to the respondent/State to place the petitioners in the higher pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15200 w.e.f 16.1.03, the date similarly situated persons in the J&K; Civil Secretariat. (Gazetted) Service-II PSS were given. The salary/emoluments of the petitioners shall be fixed accordingly.

3. Aggrieved by the said order of the writ court, the present LPA has been filed by the respondent-State. Along with the LPA, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It has been pleaded that the judgment impugned was pronounced on 17th of March'06 and thereafter, the applicants applied for issuance of certified copy of the judgment on 1st of April'06 and the same was issued on 7th of April 06. After the receipt of the copy of the judgment, it was referred to the concerned authorities for obtaining legal opinion as to whether the appeal is to be filed or not. The matter was examined by the concerned authorities and in the process of completing official formalities regarding according sanction and obtaining other requisite documents time was consumed and accordingly sanction was granted to file the appeal on 27th of June 06. It is thus stated that there was no delay in filing the appeal and even if there is some delay, the same was neither intentional nor deliberate but has been caused due to the procedure which was required to be followed.

4. We have heard Mr. Salathia, learned AAG, and perused the record.

The courts are liberal in condoning even long delays provided sufficient cause is shown to exist and the merits of the case warrant such condonation to advance the cause of substantial justice. This would not be, however, to put a premium on the negligence and inaction on the part of a litigant in taking requisite steps and ensuring filing of appeal within the prescribed period. The judgment impugned was passed on 17th of March'06. The applicants applied for the certified copy on 1st of April'06. The same was ready on 4th of April'06, as per the certified copy of the judgment annexed with the appeal. The applicants received the copy on 7th of April 06. The application, however, does not indicate as to on which date, the Law officer who obtained the copy of the judgment sent the same to the concerned authorities for obtaining legal opinion regarding filing of the appeal. It is also not mentioned in the application as to on which date, copy of the judgment was received by the concerned authority. As stated in the application, the sanction for filing the appeal was given on 27th of June'06, but it has not been mentioned how the matter was dealt with by the applicants/concerned authorities from 7th of April 06 i.e. the date on which copy of the judgment was obtained, upto 27th of June 06, i.e. the date on which sanction was given for filing the appeal. The present appeal has been filed on 7th of Sept 06 i.e. even after about more than two months from the date, sanction was given by the concerned authorities. There is no explanation whatsoever as to what happened from 27th of June 06 to 7th of Sept 06 i.e. the date of filing of appeal.

5. It is settled proposition of law that the Government is to be treated at par with an individual litigant in so far as the condonation of delay in filing the appeal is concerned. In the present case, as noticed above, the applicants have stated that time was consumed in completing the administrative formalities. In : AIR1985AP52 , Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Bactchala Balaiah, it was held that the inter department correspondence or consultation would not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In AIR 1985 Patna 185, State of Bihar v. Dhajadhari Roy, it was held that if the courts were to accept mere procedure of the working in the Government offices as sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal, then the delay would have to be condoned in almost every case and the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the appeal would for the State Government become a mis-noiner. The delay in filing of the appeal in the said case by the Government was not condoned.

6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as 1986 KLJ 693, State of J&K; v. Rattan Lal Ganjoo and Ors. has held as under-

The correspondence or consultations between different departments, as alleged in the application, cannot he construed a sufficient cause so as to condone the delay when the law has provided sufficient period to complete all such formalities....

7. The applicants in this case also have not shown any sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. However, we have considered it appropriate to go into the merits of the case also to see as to whether any injustice would be caused in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the applicants.

8. As indicated above, the respondents herein are working as Principal Private Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. The said respondents preferred a writ petition bearing No. 987/91. At that point of time respondents herein were working as Personal Assistants-cum-Stenographers to the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. In the aforesaid writ petition, directions were sought that petitioners be accorded the grade of Rs. 1900-3200/-(old) with change of designation as Private Secretaries w.e.f. 26th of Aug'77, along with release of other consequential benefits as has been done in the case of PA-cum-Stenographers working in the Civil Secretariat attached with the Ministers. It was pleaded in the writ petition that prior to 1976, the PAs-cum-Stenos working with the Ministers of the State were having a complete similarity, parity and identity to that of PAs-cum-Stenos working in the High Court of J&K.; Thereafter in the year 1977 (w.e.f. 26.8.77), the PAs-cum-Stenos attached with the Ministers of the State were given the benefit of designation of that of Private Secretaries and were placed in the grade of Rs. 1900-3200 (un-revised). It was stated that the working conditions, functions and duties of both the categories (i.e. PAs attached with the Hon'ble Judges and those attached with the Ministers) were identical in nature, character and method. It was further contended that the designation of the PAs working in various High Courts of the country has since been changed, re-designated and altered to be a Private Secretary with enhancement of grade and special pay but the said benefit has not been given to the PAs working with the Hon'ble Judges of High Court of J&K.; The above writ petition filed by respondents herein alongwith other petitioners came to be allowed vide judgment dt. l7th of July'92, with the following directions:.(1) That the respondents shall grant and accord to the petitioners the pay scales and other benefits which were paid to the erstwhile PAs and now Private Secretaries of the Ministers (Advisors and Minister of State, with 'effect from the date the petitioners were appointed as PAs of the High Court Judges with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay, increment, dues etc.

(2) While rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for their designation as Oprivate secretaries, it is directed that respondent No. 4 herein shall consider the case of the petitioners on the basis of their representations made and. the recommendations of the High Court for amendment of schedule to the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff (Condition of Service) Rules, 1968, in terms of rule 5 of the said Rules and if such proposal is made the Government/Governor shall grant approval without any further delay. Respondent No. 4 shall also be entitled to make recommendation for re-designation of the posts on the basis of the length of service of such of the petitioners and their performance as may be deemed proper in the case....

9. Against the aforesaid judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the respondent-State preferred a Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No. 114/1992. The said LPA was dismissed vide order dt. 28th of Sept'92. The State then preferred a SLP before the Supreme Court of India bearing SLP (Civil) No. 2058 of 1993. The said SLP filed by the State also came to be dismissed vide order dt. 29th of March'93. It was thereafter, the applicant-State implemented the judgment dt. 17th of July'92 and the respondents herein along with the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition were given the benefit of the same pay scale along with other consequential benefits which were being paid to the Pas attached with the Ministers of the State. They were also given the benefit of change of designation of that of Private Secretary.

10. The State Government thereafter passed orders from time to time releasing the benefit of selection grade of Rs. 2500-4000 (old) now revised to Rs.9000-14100/-, in favour of 25% of the cadre strength of Private Secretaries working in the J&K; Civil Secretariat Gazetted Service having atleast five years of service in the grade of Rs. 2125-3600 (pre-revised). One such order came to be passed on 3rd of July'96 bearing Government order No. 476-GAD of 1996 and the said order was given effect from 22nd of June'96. As the said benefit of selection grade was again denied to the respondents herein, they again preferred a writ petition bearing SWP No. 295/98. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dt. 7th of April'2000, wherein it was observed as under:.That resort to the concept of equal pay for equal work is resorted to only where something which should have been explicit in the service Rules, is not so explicit. Had Service Rules been clear, there would have been no problem for the petitioners to seek relief. It was only because of something which was implicit and which was required to be made explicit, that the petitioners; approached this Court. The requisite relief is being granted to the petitioners. They are held justified in contending that 25% of the cadre strength of the Private Secretaries of Jar/win and Kashmir High Court should have been given selection grade, in case they have completed five years of service in the grade of Rs. 1900-3200 (tin-revised) now revised to Rs. 7500-250-12000. The benefit of selection grade of Rs. 2500-4000 (old) now revised to Rs. 9000-300-14100 would be given to the 25% of the cadre strength of petitioners from the same date i.e. 22.6.1996, from which date it has been given to the Private Secretaries falling in J&K; Secretariat (Gazetted) service (vide Government order No. 476-GAD of 1996 dt. 03.07.1996), along with all consequential benefits including arrears....

11. Against the aforesaid judgment, again an LPA was preferred by applicant-State bearing LPA(SW) No. 268/2000, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dt. 29th of Nov 01, and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld. Respondents herein along with some others as per 25% of the cadre strength as observed in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge were accordingly given the benefit of selection grade of Rs. 9000-14100 with the designation of Principal Private Secretaries, w.e.f. the date, the said benefit was given to the Private Secretaries/Principal Private Secretaries of J&K; Civil Secretariat Gazetted Service.

12. Thereafter vide Government Order N0. 80-GAD of 2003 dt. 16th of Jan'03, passed by the applicant-State, the Principal Private Secretaries of J&K; Civil Secretariat Gazetted Service were given the benefit of higher grade of Rs. 10000-15200 with their induction into Kashmir Administrative Service. As the respondents herein were again ignored, they preferred another writ petition bearing SWP No. 762/03, out of which the present appeal has arisen. In the said writ petition, the respondents claimed that as their services have been treated at par with that of the Private Secretaries/Principal Private Secretaries attached with the Ministers and Ministers of State, as per the aforesaid judgments passed by this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court, therefore, they are also entitled to the benefit of higher grade of Rs. 10,000-15200 as has been given to the Principal Private Secretaries of J&K; Civil Secretariat (Gazetted) Service, minus their induction into Kashmir Administrative Service.

13. As noticed above, the said writ petition came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned judgment. The respondents as noticed above have been held entitled to the benefit of the grade of Rs. 10,000-15200/-as has been given to their counter-parts in the J&K; Civil Secretariat (Gazetted) Service. It is against this judgment, as said above, the present appeal has been preferred along with an application seeking condonation of delay.

14. As observed above, the applicant-State has not been able to show any sufficient cause in seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Even after going through the judgment impugned, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any legal error warranting interference. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the present writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen is a third round of litigation for the Private Secretaries/Principal Private Secretaries who have been compelled to approach this Court time and again due to the inaction on the part of applicant-State. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed in the opening paragraph of the judgment that 'it is unfortunate that the judicial employees are compelled to seek judicial remedies time and again for the redressal of their grievances particularly while seeking parity with the Government Employees working in the Secretariat. As far the Secretariat Employees are concerned, they are allowed benefit of the promotion/higher pay scales voluntarily by the Government and when It comes to conferment of the similar benefits on the basis of the entitlement of the judicial employees impediments are being created on one pretext or the other forcing the judicial employees to seek legal remedies....'

15. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any cause much less a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

16. This application, as such, is found to be without merit and is dismissed. As a result of this, the accompanying appeal shall also stand dismissed.