Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions for Pay Parity of Secretarial Staff at Goa Bench with Principal Seat. The court held that under Article 229 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice's recommendation for pay upgradation is binding on the State, and the State cannot refuse implementation on grounds of financial implications or differences in retirement age.

Writ petitions seeking implementation of upgraded pay scales for Secretarial Staff of the High Court of Bombay at Goa as per Notification dated 14.06.2022.

Petitioners sought direction to the State of Goa to implement the upgraded pay scales recommended by the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution and to grant arrears with retrospective effect.

The State of Goa delayed and refused to implement the upgraded pay scales for Secretarial Staff at the Goa Bench, despite the Chief Justice's recommendation and notification for the Principal Seat and other Benches.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 464/2023 had noted that the Rules were yet to be finalized and sought status. A meeting was convened on 12.05.2023 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister regarding finalization of the Rules.

Whether the Secretarial Staff of the High Court of Bombay at Goa are entitled to the upgraded pay scales as per Notification dated 14.06.2022. Whether the State of Goa can refuse implementation of the Chief Justice's recommendation under Article 229 on grounds of financial implications and difference in retirement age.

Petitioners argued that they perform identical duties as their counterparts in Maharashtra, are governed by the same Rules, and are entitled to pay parity under Article 229. They relied on several Supreme Court decisions. Respondent State argued that the retirement age in Goa is 60 years (vs. 58 in Maharashtra) and that implementing the same pay scales would have financial implications, and thus the State is not bound to adopt the same scales.

Under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice has the power to frame rules and recommend pay scales for High Court staff, and such recommendations are binding on the State Government. The State cannot refuse implementation solely on financial grounds or differences in retirement age, especially when the staff perform identical duties and are governed by the same service rules.

The petitioners as well as their counterparts i.e. Secretarial Staff, Group 'A' employees of the High Court of Bombay at its Principal seat and its Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad are appointed under the Appellate Side Service Rules, (Rules of 2000, for short), having the same identity who also perform equal identical works/duties/job/responsibilities, etc. The petitioners contend that having regard to the scope and sweep of the Hon’ble Chief Justice’s powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are entitled to the upgraded pay scales as recommended by the Hon'ble Chief Justice with retrospective effect and arrears on par with their counterparts working at the Principal seat at Bombay.

The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 186 of 2023 and Writ Petition No. 409 of 2023 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 464/2023 had noted that the Rules were yet to be finalized. A meeting was convened on 12.05.2023 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister regarding finalization of the Rules. The High Court heard both petitions together and disposed them by a common order.

• Constitution of India: Article 229, Article 230, Article 231, Article 132, Article 134
• Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 2000: Rule 3(b)(ii), Rule 3(b)(iii)
• Goa Daman and Diu (Judicial Commissioner Court) Regulation, 1963:
• Goa, Daman & Diu (Administration) Act, 1962: Section 7
• Goa Daman and Diu, Judicial Commissioner's Court (Declaration as High Court) Act, 1964:
• High Court at Bombay (Extension of Jurisdiction of Goa, to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981:
• Goa Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987: Section 3, Section 4, Section 20