New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the Goa chief secretary for defending the state government's decision to alter Bombay High Court rules related to the recruitment and services of court employees at the Goa bench. A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih sought his personal appearance in virtual mode on the next date of hearing and asked him to explain his conduct.
"We need to teach him a lesson? This is a brazen act. He is confident enough to defend the rules which should be withdrawn. We are shocked to know that he is defending them," the bench told the counsel appearing for the Goa government.
The top court took exception to the fact that the chief justice of the Bombay High Court was not consulted before publishing the High Court of Bombay at Goa Officers and the Members of the Staff on the Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules of 2023.
It was hearing a su motu case registered based on representations made by former employees of the Bombay High Court over the non-payment of their terminal dues, including pensionary benefits even after years of their retirement.
The state government's counsel Abhay Anil Anturkar sought time to seek specific instruction but the bench said it would ask the chief secretary of the state to himself explain why the rules were not withdrawn and why they were published in the name of the chief justice of the Bombay High Court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also appearing for the state, said he was not defending the rules nor the action and sought some time to rectify the error.
The bench said it is a brazen act that the rules were altered and published in the name of the chief justice of the high court.
It said the court had hoped the error could be rectified after the July 24 order as it was specifically recorded it was prima facie against the settled position of law.
The bench listed the matter for further hearing on November 22.
On July 24, the top court gave an opportunity to the Goa government to rectify its error which it described as a "clear breach of law laid down by this court."
It had noted that in exercise of the constitutional authority vested in the chief justice under Article 229 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, following the rules framed by the rules committee, forwarded the High Court of Bombay at Goa Officers and the Members of the Staff on the Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2023 to the state government.
Thereafter, the Goa government issued a notification dated June 3, 2023, notifying the rules, it said.
"The rules which have been notified contain a prefatory statement that they have been made by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the exercise of the power conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution.
"However, the rules are significantly at variance with what was submitted to the Government of Goa under the authority of the chief justice," the top court had said in its order.
It had noted that an affidavit filed by the Registrar (Legal and Research) before the High Court of Bombay at Goa in pending matters states that in the guise of complying with the order of this court, the Goa Government has framed rules governing the service conditions which were not approved either by the rules committee of the high court or by the Chief Justice.
It said, "The course of action which has been followed by the state government, prima facie, is contrary to the settled position of law and the remit of Article 229 of the Constitution."
The bench further added that it is "extraordinary" that the Goa Government has purported to notify rules under Article 229 of the Constitution in the name of the Chief Justice though the rules in the form in which they were notified were not recommended by the Chief Justice nor was any consultative exercise conducted pursuant to the recommendation by the Chief Justice.
"We need to teach him a lesson? This is a brazen act. He is confident enough to defend the rules which should be withdrawn. We are shocked to know that he is defending them," the bench told the counsel appearing for the Goa government.
The top court took exception to the fact that the chief justice of the Bombay High Court was not consulted before publishing the High Court of Bombay at Goa Officers and the Members of the Staff on the Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules of 2023.
It was hearing a su motu case registered based on representations made by former employees of the Bombay High Court over the non-payment of their terminal dues, including pensionary benefits even after years of their retirement.
The state government's counsel Abhay Anil Anturkar sought time to seek specific instruction but the bench said it would ask the chief secretary of the state to himself explain why the rules were not withdrawn and why they were published in the name of the chief justice of the Bombay High Court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also appearing for the state, said he was not defending the rules nor the action and sought some time to rectify the error.
The bench said it is a brazen act that the rules were altered and published in the name of the chief justice of the high court.
It said the court had hoped the error could be rectified after the July 24 order as it was specifically recorded it was prima facie against the settled position of law.
The bench listed the matter for further hearing on November 22.
On July 24, the top court gave an opportunity to the Goa government to rectify its error which it described as a "clear breach of law laid down by this court."
It had noted that in exercise of the constitutional authority vested in the chief justice under Article 229 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, following the rules framed by the rules committee, forwarded the High Court of Bombay at Goa Officers and the Members of the Staff on the Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2023 to the state government.
Thereafter, the Goa government issued a notification dated June 3, 2023, notifying the rules, it said.
"The rules which have been notified contain a prefatory statement that they have been made by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the exercise of the power conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution.
"However, the rules are significantly at variance with what was submitted to the Government of Goa under the authority of the chief justice," the top court had said in its order.
It had noted that an affidavit filed by the Registrar (Legal and Research) before the High Court of Bombay at Goa in pending matters states that in the guise of complying with the order of this court, the Goa Government has framed rules governing the service conditions which were not approved either by the rules committee of the high court or by the Chief Justice.
It said, "The course of action which has been followed by the state government, prima facie, is contrary to the settled position of law and the remit of Article 229 of the Constitution."
The bench further added that it is "extraordinary" that the Goa Government has purported to notify rules under Article 229 of the Constitution in the name of the Chief Justice though the rules in the form in which they were notified were not recommended by the Chief Justice nor was any consultative exercise conducted pursuant to the recommendation by the Chief Justice.
