All Employees Of HC Should Be Paid The Same Clothing/Washing Allowance: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

While dealing with the petition challenging the creation of a distinction between similarly placed employees in terms of the pay scale, the Division Bench of Justice Muralidhar and Justice Talwant Singh noted that as per the High Court Service Rules, there's no rationale behind creating such a distinction.

In the plea, it was pointed out by the Petitioner that after 2007-08, when the uniform was made mandatory for all the employees of the court, the disparity in terms of grant of washing and clothing allowance began. While the gazetted officers were getting an annual allowance of Rs. 11,250, other employees were provided with an annual sum of Rs.1500.

There was disparity in the matter of the washing allowance as well. Whereas the former set of employees, the Gazetted Officers got Rs. 1750/- per month as washing allowance, the other set of employees got only Rs.1250/- per month.

It was further pointed out by the Petitioner that there are no guidelines/criteria governing the allocation of such amounts and there is no transparency in the process of prescribing uniforms to the employees of the Court. For example, while some officials of a branch, for instance, the Protocol Branch of this Court, could be getting clothing allowance, others of the same branch could be getting stitched clothes.

In addition to this, there are several employees in the same pay band who are treated differently in the matter of clothing allowance. For instance, SJAs, SJTs, and SPAs are grouped in the same pay band; however, only SPAs and PAs receive clothing allowance and the others receive stitched clothes.

The Respondents had given the following reasons to justify the distinction between posts for clothing and washing allowance eligibility:

1. the officials directly assisting Judges inside the courts "are required to maintain the decorum and discipline of the Court by wearing the prescribed uniform."
2. the employees being provided higher allowances appear in public in a representative capacity for the Delhi High Court.
3. it is necessary for the officials in the first category to be identifiable to their superiors in public.

The court responded to all the three submissions of the Respondents in the following manner:

1. The Court failed to understand how only the staff serving inside the courts is required to maintain decorum, while those working in the Registry are not. In fact, every employee of the High Court should be required to maintain decorum of the Court, both inside and outside the court halls/complex. In the entire High Court complex, each staff member projects the image of the Court and has to be mindful of his/her conduct.
2. All staff members assist Judges, whether inside the court or outside the court, and their services are indeed indispensable for the proper functioning of the Court.
3. The Court failed to appreciate how, merely because the colour of their uniform is different, certain officials could get a higher allowance as compared to others.
4. While it is understandable that an overtime allowance is payable on account of working beyond normal hours, that cannot form the basis for discretion in the matter of clothing and washing allowances.

While rejecting the said policy as discriminatory, the court noted that there is no rational basis for making any distinction between the two sets of employees in the matter of clothing and washing allowances. It highlighted that:

'The need for all employees of the High Court to be turned out well enough cannot change depending on the rank and status of such employees. Once it has been decided that there should be a prescribed uniform for the employees, the Court sees no logic in making distinctions as to the quality of the clothes and the washing allowance'.

The court also went on to highlight that in terms of Rule 8 of the High Court Establishments (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972, a person appointed to a post in one category may be transferred to a post of equal status in any other category. Therefore, Petitioners and others similarly placed employees of the Respondent cannot be discriminated against, in the matter of grant of clothing and washing allowances.

Therefore, Respondents have been directed to pay the same washing and clothing allowance to Petitioners and similarly placed employees, which is given to employees falling under Category-I.

Click here to download the Judgment