IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6111 OF 1997

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VASANT J. DESAI
Versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :
Mr. V. J. Desai for the Petitioner
Mr. Haroobhai Mehta, Sr. Standing Counsel
with Mr. Ketan Dave for Respondent No.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : THE ACTING CJ R. A. MEHTA and
MR. JUSTICE N. N. MATHUR
Date of Order : 26/08/97

ORAL ORDER

1.The Petitioner has brought this petition by way of Public Interest Litigation and prays that the summary of recommendations and report of the Central Fifth Pay Commission be quashed and set aside and an independent committee consisting of Economists, Leaders of Un-organized labor and members of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha be appointed by the Court, to consider the recommendations and suggest the ways and means to implement the Fifth Pay Commission Recommendations without affecting economy of the country and without affecting millions of countrymen.

2. We do not think that this subject is open to judicial review by the Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If such an exercise is undertaken by the Court, it would be impossible to do justice. If any other committee is appointed by the Court, it could be subject to further judicial review at the instance of and in other Courts and there will be no end to it. The questions before the Government are such on which it is competent to take appropriate decisions and for which the Government is answerable to the Parliament. It is not that the report of the Fifth Central Pay Commission has not been considered. It has received widest circulation and in many forum it has been put for discussion. It is for the Government to take appropriate final decision. The Court is not required to deal with such questions and the Constitution has never contemplated that the Court would assume the responsibility of running the Government.

3. The petitioner contends that there are serious differences of opinion with the recommendations of the Commission. He states that many other people in the country have also expressed their views on the recommendations of the Commission and that even within the Commission also there were strong dissents. There are possibility of wide variety of views all over the country. It is not only improper but is also not permissible for the Court to substitute its views and set aside the recommendations of the Commission in a matter like this.

4. In view of the above, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. Hence dismissed.

26.8.97
(R. A. Mehta, Actg. CJ)
(N.N. Mathur, J.)