HC directs committee on pay parity
The Chhattisgarh High Court on September 14, 2022, set aside a series of government orders that had rejected a long standing demand from the High Court employees to upgrade their pay scales at par with those in other higher courts. In a detailed order delivered by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, the court found that the decision making process in the State Secretariat lacked adequate reasoning and that the Finance Department had not shown why the recommendation from the chief justice deserved rejection. The judgment quashes the orders dated July 28, 2005, March 19, 2007, and the memo of April 11, 2008 and sends the matter back for structured consideration.
The petition was brought by the Chhattisgarh High Court Employees Association and its then president Pooran Singh Thakur, who argued that ministerial and other staff at the High Court were being paid at lower scales than counterparts in courts such as the Delhi High Court despite performing comparable duties. The association relied on earlier recommendations made to the State under Article 229 of the Constitution and asked the court to direct the government to implement an upgraded pay pattern from July 28, 2005, with consequences for arrears and pensions.
The core of the court’s reasoning focused on the administrative record. The bench found that the Secretariat orders rejecting the recommendation were non speaking and did not show any material comparison between the duties performed by Chhattisgarh High Court staff and those of staff in higher paid courts. On that procedural ground alone the court concluded that the action of the State suffered from illegality and possible mala fides, and therefore deserved to be set aside. The court relied on established administrative law principles that require the executive to record intelligible reasons when making policy decisions that affect employees.
Beyond quashing the earlier rejections, the High Court gave a clear and practical direction for resolving the dispute. The court ordered that its judgment be placed before the chief justice so that a committee can be constituted. That committee should include judges of the High Court and senior Secretaries from the Finance and Law Departments of the State. Its task is to compare the nature and pattern of duties in the Chhattisgarh High Court and the Delhi High Court and to recommend an appropriate pay pattern. The court expressly recommended that this exercise be completed preferably within four months and that the chief justice may empower the committee to frame rules under Article 229 for future governance of the High Court’s service conditions.
The judgment also surveys relevant Supreme Court precedents that shape how Article 229 should operate in practice. The bench cited decisions that emphasize the limited scope of judicial interference in policy choices but underline the court’s role in policing the decision making process. Where the executive fails to state reasons or relies on irrelevant considerations, the courts have authority to set aside administrative orders and to direct a fresh, reasoned exercise of discretion. That legal framework informed the Chhattisgarh court’s remedy of directing a committee based inquiry rather than ordering an immediate adoption of another court’s pay structure.
For the High Court employees and their representatives the order offers a pathway to a reasoned and evidence based comparison of job roles and pay. For the State it is a reminder that refusal to act must rest on recorded, relevant reasons and that mere administrative silence or conclusory notes will not withstand judicial review. If the committee follows the court’s direction and completes the comparison within the timeline suggested, the long running dispute may reach an administratively sustainable resolution without further prolonged litigation.
Case Details : WPS No. 4276 of 2011, C.G. High Court Employees Association and Another vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others. For the Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Pillai and Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Amrito Das, Additional Advocate General and For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate.