SC Employees Assn. moves Supreme Court after Centre rejects CJI's recommendation for court allowance

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a plea by the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association against a decision of the Central government rejecting a recommendation made by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) granting ‘court allowance’ to employees of the apex court [Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India]..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant sought response from the Central government to the plea which stated that the letter of the Ministry of Law and Justice dated September 25, 2020 conveying its decision to reject the CJI's recommendation, was violative of Articles 14 and 146 of the Constitution..- Supreme Court employees sought ‘court allowance’ similar to parliamentary allowance which employees working in parliament get;- After recommendations by two committees, the CJI approved the same and sought the President’s approval;- The approval was denied by the Central government;- The employees moved the Court against such denial claiming the same was violative of Articles 14 and 146;- A Division Bench of the Supreme Court issued notice..The plea filed through advocate K Parameshwar said that petitioners in January 2015 had requested the CJI to grant court allowance similar to that of parliamentary allowance for arduous and urgent work involved in the Supreme Court.To consider the petitioners’ request a committee of officers and one of judges was appointed. The committee of officers recommended that the grant be allowed in April 2017.Following this, the committee of judges also made the same recommendation to the CJI in May 2019.Therefore, the Chief Justice approved the grant and sought the President’s approval under Article 146(2) of the Constitution.In September 2020, the Ministry rejected the proposal via a letter without recording any reasons and without placing the proposal before the President..Thus, the petitioner organisation approached the apex court, arguing that the refusal grossly undermined the judiciary’s independence.It was stated that Article 146(2) of the Constitution did not empower the Ministry to reject the approval without even putting it up to the President of India. A judgment in the case of Supreme Court Employees Welfare Assn. v. Union of India was cited where it was held that an “exchange of thoughts” on the issue was necessary before the President declined approval..Further, it was submitted that as per the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, the judiciary has financial freedom with regard to its own employees..The importance of the Court allowance was also emphasised for the vibrant functioning of the judicial branch.“With respect, it is stated that the administration of justice will come to a grinding halt without the continuous and arduous work of the employees of the Hon’ble Court,” the petition read..The plea cited judgment of the top court in State of AP v T Gopalakrishna Murthi, in which it was held that approval under Article 146(2) should ordinarily be granted by the President, and rejected only in exceptional circumstances.“One should expect in the fitness of things and in view of the spirit of Article 229 that ordinarily and generally the approval should be accorded. But surely it is wrong to say that the approval is a mere formality and in no case it is open to the Government to refuse to accord their approval,” the plea stated..The petitioner therefore prayed that the rejection letter of the Central government be set aside, and the CJI's recommendation for court allowance be accepted. .The petitioner also sought an order directing the respondents to pay the allowance with effect from January 2016.