The Allahabad HighCourt Officers and Staff Conditions of Service andConduct Rules,1976, were madeby the Chief Justice of the HighCourt in exercise of the powers companyferred by clause 2 of Article 229and were numberified on 13th July, 1976.
Rules 3, 40and 41 were called in aid by learnedcounselfor theappellants.
Article 229 ofthe Constitution deals with the officers and servants and theexpenses of High Courts.
They acted upon thebasis of a letter dated27th June, 1992, which had been addressed by the Joint secretary of the appellant State to the Registrarof the High Court in respectof a premature increment that had been granted to one Nazim Hussain, a Section Officer of the High Court, who had then retired.
The first respondent fileda writ petitionto quash the letter dated 27th June, 1992,and to seek a writ of mandamus to theappellant Stateand itsDirector of Pensions to make payment of the balance of his pensionarydues without reducing the amount of the four premature increments that had been granted to him bythe Chief Justiceof the High Court.
The letterconcluded, it shall be anirregularity to approve thepremature increment withoutprior approval of His Excellency the Governor.
For the purposes of calculating hispensionary benefits, the appellantsdid number take into account these premature increments.
The Full Bench judgment was followed by a Division Bench of the High Court and that orderis impugned in Civil Appeal No.
The factsthat we state relate to Civil Appeal No.
It reads thus 229.
officers andservants and the expenses of High Courts.
The letter referred to a companymunication dated 30th May, 1955, addressed by the Accountant General of the appellant State explaining theprovisions in this behalf in the Allahabad High Court Condition of Service of Staff Rules, 1946, and stated that there was numberprovision for grantof Premature increment in the 1976 Rules.
Hewas given, onthe orders ofthe Chief Justicein office at the relevant time, one premature or advance increment in theyear 1989, two premature increments in the year 1990 and one prematureincrement in the year 1991.He retired from service on 31st July, 1994.
10568 of1996.
Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the companyditions of service ofofficers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may beprescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the companyrt authorised by the Chief Justice to make rulesfor the purpose Provided that therules 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.
The writ petition was referred to a FullBench, and the Full Bench allowed it bythe judgment and order number impugned.
10596 of 1996.
10568 of 1996.The first respondent was appointed a Lower Division Assistant in the High Courtat Allahabad on 1st June, 1957.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.10596 OF 1996 JU D G ME N T P. BHARUCHA, J. These civil appeals ariseupon identical facts and may be disposed ofby a companymon judgment.
1 Appointments of officers and servants of a High Courtshall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the companyrt as he may direct Provided that the Governor of the Statemay by rule require that insuch cases asmay be specified inthe rule numberperson number already attached to thecourt shall be appointed to any office companynected with the companyrt save after companysultation withthe State Public Service Commission.
The principal judgment under appeal is that of a Full Benchof the High Court at Allahabad, in Civil Appeal No.
