1. The petitioners, who are members of the Kerala High Court service, working as Private Secretary to Judge, are before this Court seeking to declare that they are entitled for the additional grade of Private Secretary (Special Grade) to Judge in the scale of pay proposed and recommended by the HonourableChief Justice under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India as contained in Exts.P2 to P4 with arrears of salary. They are seeking sanction and creation of additional grade of Private Secretary (Special Grade) to Judge in the scale of pay of ₹107800-160000 in the ratio of 1:1:1 between Private Secretary to Judge, Private Secretary (Higher Grade) to Judge and Private Secretary (Special Grade) to Judge.

2. The petitioners state that they are working as Private Secretary (Higher Grade) to Judge and Private Secretary to Judge. The cadre strength of the post of Private Secretary to Judge is 47. Applying the current ratio of 1:3, there are 11 posts of Private Secretary (Higher Grade) to Judge and 36 posts of Private Secretary to Judge.

3. The Registry of the High Court, on 23.04.2021, wrote to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala pointing out certain anomalies in implementing the 11th Pay Revision and the requirement of upgradation of certain posts of Private Secretary to Judge as Private Secretary (Special Grade) to Judge.

4. On 03.04.2023, the Registry of the High Court furnished details of additional financial commitment for implementing the proposal of upgradation. Again, on 13.10.2023, a further communication was sent seeking implementation of the proposal. However, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6 communication dated 02.05.2025 informing that the Anomaly Rectification Cell of the Finance Department with regard to the 11th Pay Revision has stopped its functioning. The Registry of the High Court was directed to resubmit the proposal for consideration by the next Pay Revision Commission.

5. The petitioners state that Ext.P6 communication is illegal and vitiated by non-application of mind. The Government is dilly-dallying on the issue from the year 2021. After keeping the proposal of the Chief Justice for about four years in cold storage, Ext.P6 has been issued.

6. The HonourableChief Justice recommended to upgrade certain posts of Private Secretary to Judge with the scale of pay of ₹107800-160000 with effect from 01.04.2021. The proposal made by the Honourable Chief Justice, as per Exts.P2 to P4, is ignored. In fact, Ext.P6 communication amounts to contempt of court, contend the petitioners.

7. The 3rd respondent-Additional Chief Secretary filed counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent stated that adequate promotional opportunities are available for the employees entering service as Confidential Assistant Grade-II. A person joining as Confidential Assistant will get almost five 28A fixations during service. Benefit of stagnation increment is also allowed.

8. For a candidate entering service as Confidential Assistant Grade-II, no additional qualifications are insisted for promotions. On the other hand, for other categories, even for the first promotion, additional qualifications are made mandatory. For promotion to the first gazetted post in the hierarchy of Assistants, Law Degree or Judicial Test (Higher) is also insisted.

9. The 3rd respondent further submitted that if a Special Grade is granted above Private Secretary (Higher Grade) to Judge for enhancing promotional avenues, it will jeopardise the existing equilibrium among various posts. It will lead to further demand for scale hike to other posts in the High Court service.

10. The scale of pay of Private Secretary (Higher Grade) to Judge is already three scales of pay above their counter parts in Secretariat service. The petitioners have better promotion prospects and better scale of pay. Sanction of a new ratio based cadre will have financial implication equal to a post upgradation. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

11. The Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-High Court submitted that the Pay Revision Commission has not properly taken into consideration the functions and duties of the Private Secretaries to Judge in the High Court while considering the granting of an additional grade with higher scale. The work of a Private Secretary to Judge is not comparable to the work of similar categories of employees in the Government Secretariat. Attending to the continuous work of taking down dictations of judgment / interim orders etc., which is only one part of their duties, would itself place the Private Secretaries to the Judge at a different pedestal.  Many of the present Private Secretaries are those recruited directly as Personal Assistants and are stagnating in service without adequate promotional avenues.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader (Finance) representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

13. The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal on the part of respondents 1 to 3 to accept the proposal made by the High Court for upgradation of certain posts in the cadre of Private Secretary to Judge. The cadre of Private Secretary to Judge is presently having only two grades, Private Secretary to Judge and Private Secretary (Higher Grade) to Judge, in the ratio 3:1. The High Court made proposal to sanction an additional grade of Private Secretary (Special Grade) to Judge and to fix a ratio of 1:1:1.

14. The work of Private Secretary to Judge or a Personal Assistant to Judge in the High Court is not comparable to the work of similar categories of employees in the Government Secretariat. Apart from attending to the continuous work of taking down dictation of judgments and interim orders, Private Secretaries to Judge have to attend the other official as well as personal affairs of a Judge.

15. There is only one Private Secretary attached to each Judge. All matters relating to travel, medical claims, LTC, etc. of a Judge are to be prepared by the Private Secretary. There is no specified working hours for the Private Secretary to Judge. They have to attend the dictation work in the Chambers from early morning and may have to sit very late, after office hours.

16. It is the duty of the Private Secretary to Judge to attend to the Judge's Camp Office at the residence of the Judge during holidays and even on working days, if so required by the Judge. An Assistant joining the High Court service can reach the level of Joint Registrar or Registrar while the PA/CA, who require specialised qualification than Assistant, can reach only the scale of Assistant Registrar (Higher Grade) and that too at the fag end of their service.

17. Respondents 1 to 3 state that a Confidential Assistant appointed to the High Court service gets ample promotional opportunities. The post of Private Secretary to Judge is a promotional post of Personal Assistant to Judge. Direct recruitment is one of the mode of appointment of Personal Assistant to Judge. A candidate, who is appointed as Personal Assistant to Judge (Grade-II), when gets promoted as Private Secretary to Judge, can aspire for only one Higher Grade, namely Private Secretary (Higher Grade) to Judge.

18. Such a candidate will have to stagnate in the said Higher Grade till his/her retirement without any other promotional prospects. Keeping aside the Higher Grades, the only promotional avenue of a direct recruit Personal Assistant to Judge, is to the cadre of Private Secretary to Judge. Taking into consideration the strenuous duties of PS/PA, taking into consideration the nature of duties discharged by them and taking into consideration the fact that Private Secretaries are working without any fixed working hours, I am of the view that the cadre of Private Secretary to Judge in the High Court cannot be compared with the similar cadre in Secretariat service or in any other branch of the Government.

19. The question arising for consideration is whether respondents 1 to 3 are justified in declining the request made by the High Court for upgradation of certain posts of Private Secretary to Judge. Under the constitutional scheme reflected in Article 229, appointment of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the court as he may direct. Article 229(2) provides that subject to the provisions of any law made by the legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by Rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court. The proviso to Article 229(2) stipulates that the Rules made so, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pension, require the approval of the Governor of the State.

20. This Court has considered the scope of Article 229(2) in the judgment in N. Mahadevan v. State of Kerala [2021 (2) KHC 262]. This Court held that it is irrefragable that the Constitutional Scheme, now granted binding jural reiteration, is that the Executive obtains no dominance or supremacy while considering the recommendations and Rules made and framed by the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and that, at the best, the proviso to the said Article is designed and intended to facilitate a dialogue of governance between the two high functionaries.

21. The inviolable concepts and established precepts of independence of Judiciary is of acme importance when decisions and actions are taken by the Government under the proviso to Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India and as a normal Rule, they ought to be approved and sanctioned, except in the case of legitimate and justified reasons being recorded.

22. In this case, the Government has straight away refused to grant approval to the proposal made by the HonourableChief Justice of the High Court observing in Ext.P6 that the proposal has to be resubmitted to the next Pay Revision Commission for consideration. In the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra and others [(2020) 20 SCC 163], the HonourableApex Court has laid down the manner and approach of the interaction required between the Judiciary and the Executive while taking a decision under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. The HonourableApex Court held as follows:

                  27.     Adequate budgeting so as to meet the judiciary’s work demands, so as to ensure proper, infrastructure and facilities is integral to judicial functioning. In that sense, it is an aspect of judicial independence. That independence of judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution is by now well entrenched. An integral part of “Independence of Judiciary”, as a constitutional value is the “institutional Independence” i.e. the aspect concerning the financial freedom or autonomy which the judiciary must possess and enjoy.

                  28.     The scheme of Article 229 of the Constitution of India obviously requires a joint consideration of the proposal which the Chief Justice may make in regard to appointments, conditions of services, etc., in accordance with the Rules. Undoubtedly, if the Chief Justice takes a decision which has financial implications and that decision cannot be questioned by any authority, the financial implications which such decision may have imposed, should receive due consideration at the hands of the State Government and eventually the Governor.

23.    The Apex Court disagreed to the method of refusing to grant such approvals without exchange of thoughts. In Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India [(1989) 4 SCC 187], the HonourableApex Court held as follows:

                  57.   So far as the Supreme Court and the High Courts are concerned, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, are empowered to frame rules subject to this that when the rules are framed by the Chief Justice of India or by the Chief Justice of the High Court relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, the approval of the President of India or the Governor, as the case may be, is required. It is apparent that the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court have been placed at a higher level in regard to the framing of rules containing the conditions of service. It is true that the President of India cannot be compelled to grant approval to the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, but it is equally true that when such rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted. If the President of India is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts between the President of India and the Chief Justice of India.”

24. Having regard to the pronouncements of the HonourableApex Court, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the recommendations of the Chief Justice should ordinarily be approved by the State and refusal thereof must be for strong and adequate reasons. In the case on hand, respondents 1 to 3 have treated the matter lightly. The recommendations made by a high functionary like the HonourableChief Justice were not promptly attended to. The High Court has been relegated to approach next Pay Revision Commission. The question regrading upgradation of a post in the High Court service being within the exclusive domain of the Chief Justice of the High Court, subject to approval, the State is expected to accept the recommendation save and except for good and cogent reason.

25. There is no doubt that the Private Secretaries to Judge working in the High Court are discharging strenuous and continuous duties. Their duties include not only taking down dictations of lengthy judgments and sensitive interim orders. They have to attend all official and personal work including matters of confidential nature entrusted by the HonourableJudges. The Private Secretaries are required to attend the residential office of the HonourableJudges regularly. They have to arrange tour programs of the HonourableJudges and family members and may have even to accompany the HonourableJudges on tour, if directed. They may have to work even during holidays and court vacations. The duties and functions of the Private Secretaries to Judge in High Court therefore cannot be compared with the Private Secretaries working in other branches of the Government.

26. A candidate, who is directly recruited as Personal Assistant to Judge, gets a cadre promotion only to the post of Private Secretary to Judge and such candidates will have to retire after getting only one cadre promotion. Once an officer is promoted as Private Secretary to Judge, the officer gets only one Higher Grade / Grade promotion and will have to retire from service from the only Higher Grade they have received. It is considering all the afore aspects that the HonourableChief Justice has made the proposal for upgradation of certain posts of Private Secretary to Judge.

27. The cadre strength of Private Secretary to Judge is 47 with a ratio of 3:1 between Private Secretary to Judge and Private Secretary (Higher Grade) to Judge. The proposal is only to upgrade 15 posts in the cadre as Private Secretary (Special Grade) to Judge. The proposal does not force the Government to create new additional posts. The financial implication arising out of the implementation of the proposal therefore is only marginal. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the firm opinion that refusal on the part of respondents 1 to 3 to accept the proposal made by the High Court is illegal and unconstitutional.

                  The writ petition is therefore allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to reconsider the matter and grant approval to the proposal made by the HonourableChief Justice, if necessary after further consultations. The upgradation shall take effect with effect from 01.04.2021. Final orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months.