Petitioner Through Mr. Pawanjit S, Bindra, Advocate v. KEWAL KUAMR SHARMA & ANR

1. In pursuance to the last order, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of the Secretary to Lt. Governor of Delhi. Mr. Luthra has shown the file pertaining to this case.

2. A perusal of the file reveals that the Principal Secretary (Finance), Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 29"^ August, 2016 had opined that since the effective date of Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment & Cont. Cas(C) 1023, 1026, 1027 &1028 of2015 Page 3 of[6] 2017:DHC:8470 Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 [for short "Rules, 2012"] is 2"'' December, 2013, the approval of the Competent Authority to make the Rules, 2012 effective from January, 1996 to Stenographers, Process Servers, Drivers, Orderly, Peons and Dak Peons in accordance with Division Benchjudgment would be required. Mr. Luthra, states that the Notification dated 2^^ December, 2013 hadbeen issued with prior approval ofthe Central Government(Ministry ofHome Affairs) ofemployees ofDistrict Courts.

3. He further states that the Notification dated 28^^^ October, 1953 states thatpriorapproval ofthe Central Government is required before coming into force ofrules relatingto service conditions of employeesofDistrict Courts.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Pawanjit S. Bindra, learned counsel for petitioners states that the present case does not require amendment of any rules as the Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated 9^*^ July, 2015 has granted parity to the petitioners with Lower Division Clerks from 1^' January, 1996. He further states that when the Lower Division Clerks were granted parity withtheDelhi HighCourt employees, no priorsanction of the Central Government had been obtained. Mr. Gaurav Sarin, in rejoinder, states that in view of the dismissal of the SLP filed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Lower Division Clerks were granted parity with the Delhi High Court employees without taking prior approval of the Central Government, Ministry ofHome Affairs.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that as the Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated 9^^ July, 2015 has applied the principle of parity and directed the Delhi Government to grant the same benefits to the Stenographers, Process Servers, Drivers, Orderly, Peons and Dak Peons as grantedto the LowerDivisionClerks from Cont. Cas(C) 1023, 1026, 1027& 1028of2015 Page 4 of[6] V January, 1996, no amendment ofRules, 2012 is required. In fact, ifthe amendment ofRules, 2012 was a pre-requisite, as suggested by Mr. Luthra, then this Court has no doubt that theDivision Bench order would have been challenged by the respondents as being contrary tolaw.

6. However, as the Division Bench's order dated 9^'' July, 2015 has attained finality, this Court is ofthe view that itneeds to be complied with immediately. This Court is further ofthe view that reference ofthe file by the Lt. Governor is an exercise in futility as no official of the Ministry of Home Affairs can sit in appeal over the judgment and order ofthe Division Bench and take a stand that it shall not comply with the same or refuse to amend the rules. At the highest, the amendment ofthe rules is aprocedural requirement which can even be obtained post facto. However, the said approval cannot be the basis to hold up disbursement offunds in accordance with the Division Bench order dated 9^^^ July, 2015.

7. Moreover, once the Union ofIndia through the Ministry ofLaw and Justice had taken the stand in the writ petition that it was neither necessary nor appropriate party as Union ofIndia had not to bear any financial burden and the petitioners were not its employees, the reference ofthe file to Union of India could have been made only with the prior approval of the Division Bench.

8. Also the stand taken by the Union of India through Ministry ofLaw and Justice cannot be saidto be a stand of a particular Ministry. It reflects the stand of the Union of India. If there was a mistake or a miscommunication, Ministry of Law and Justice, Union of India should have brought itto the notice ofthe Division Bench and withdrawn its earlier affidavit. Cont. Cas(C) 1023, 1026, 1027 &1028 of2015 Page 5of[6]

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the fact that the budgets are going to lapse by31®"^ March, 2017, this Court directs the District & Sessions Judge (HQ) to release the amounts to the petitioners in accordance with the judgment and order dated 9'^ July, 2015 within two weeks.

10. With the aforesaid direction, present contempt petitions are closed. It is clarified that there is no requirement for Secretary to Lt. Governor of Delhi to place on record any affidavit. MANMOHAN, J MARCH 07, 2017 m Cont. Cas(C) 1023, 1026, 1027 &1028 of2015 Page 6 of[6]