If state sits on matter, judiciary and executive would be at loggerheads: Madhya Pradesh HC warns govt

Petitioners in the case are HC employees seeking revision of their pay on a par with other HCs. The court has been hearing the case since 2016.

“If (the) state continues to sit over the matter for any further period of time, it would create a situation where (the) judiciary and executive would be at loggerheads, which is not in the interest of administration of justice,” the court said.

The court had previously recommended specific pay scales for high court employees across various cadres.

In its observations, the court said: “It is quite unfortunate to note that the State is sitting tight over the matter since (the) last seven years after passing of order dated 28.04.2017 and since (the) last five years after passing of the order dated 05.09.2019. This contempt petition was adjourned on several occasions for one pretext or the other”.

Chief Secretary Veera Rana, who was present in court on July 4, was informed that the high court had recommended specific pay scales for its employees across various cadres. This recommendation has been pending with the state government for almost 10 years, awaiting approval and notification by the Governor, the chief secretary was told.

“What is disturbing in this case is that the State Government is indulging in procrastination for reasons attributed to the State Government in a situation where the Chief Justice exercising powers under Article 229(2) of the Constitution recommended revised pay-scales for employees of the High Court after assessing requirement of number of posts and nature of duties attached to each post in the establishment of High Court,” the court said, adding that if the Chief Justice of the High Court proposes a justified revision of pay scales, the obstacle of insufficient funds should not prevent the state from accepting it.

When the chief secretary asked for more time citing the ongoing assembly session, the court gave the government three weeks to resolve the impasse.

The case is now scheduled for on July 31 “for either reporting compliance by the State or showing cause as to why coercive steps be not taken against respondent/contemner”.