Petition regarding dearth of staff in HC, Distt Courts
Strictures passed against authorities for obduracy
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 18: In a petition highlighting dearth of staff at various levels in the High Court and District Courts, a Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Sanjay Dhar has directed the respondents to complete the process of creating 334 posts within a period of 60 days.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
When the petition came-up for hearing, DB observed, “this is a writ petition that has been pending since the year 2017, which however, has undergone a change in texture and character over a period of time and has extended its avenues beyond the specific prayer of the petitioners”.
“What started off as a case where employees of the High Court were asking for monetary benefits has now been expanded to include the enhanced staff requirements of the High Court itself. The order dated 08.02.2023 passed by this court records the fact that during the pendency of this petition in view of the various applications filed by the petitioners and interveners, the scope was expanded”, the DB said, adding “the said order also disclosed that the High Court was grappling with the issue of deficient infrastructure and staff for meeting the needs of the increased judge strength from 14 to 17 (as per the date of that order which strength has now increased from 17 to 25 judges)”.
“In 2014, the Registry of this court vide a communication dated 29.01.2014 followed by another dated 26.11.2015, required the increase in the staff strength to the 334 posts (as on 2021) in different categories. The matter remained pending with the Government for more than eight years without any palpable progress. The said communications mention about the several meetings between the representatives of High Court and Government had taken place but on account of the obduracy of the Government, no substantial progress could be made in the creation of 334 posts in the different categories to meet the requirement of support staff for the judges”, the DB said.
“The order of 08.02.2023 also records the fact that Government has neither accepted nor declined the proposal and that there was a time when the Secretary to the Government, Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs made a statement before the court that the matter with regard to the creation of 334 posts recommended by the High Court was referred to the Finance Department for concurrence but the same was subsequently withdrawn by filing an application”, DB observed.
In the light of the increase in strength of Judges, a communication was addressed by the High Court to the UT Government to immediately create 24 posts of different categories to provide the requisite personal staff to the newly elevated Judges and after great persuasion, 24 posts were created in different categories which was given effect on 25.05.2023, which includes Bench Secretaries, Secretaries, Readers and Private Secretaries, the DB said.
The DB further observed, “the manner in which the Union Territory and its bureaucracy has proceeded with the consistent demands of this Court is laggardly and casual. This court is not impressed by the arguments/submissions put forth by the Senior Additional Advocate General, saying that consistent efforts have been made by the UT Government in order to fulfill the requirement of the High Court with regard to staff and infrastructure”, adding “once the High Court has given on the judicial side its requirement for 334 posts, the act of the Government in stating that it would have to examine the requirement of the High Court based on the parameters of the number of Judges working in the High Court and the number of posts against ongoing cases and also examining the requirement of this court of 334 posts while drawing a comparison with the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the Allahabad High Court with its principal seat at Allahabad and one Bench at Lucknow, is gross contempt”.
“It is not for the UT to examine whether the requirement of the High Court is just or improper and the High Court through the Chief Justice is the sole authority which is entitled to decide its requirement and there can be no examination of the same by the executive. It is understandable, if the executive had expressed its inability to comply on grounds of lack of funds but anything beyond that of examining whether the requirement is justified or not is an act of gross contumacious conduct”, the DB said.
“This High Court shall understand and accommodate the UT if the question is restricted only to the issue of finances. But we would take very serious note henceforth, if committees are made to sit and ascertain and assess the requirement of this court. If it is ever so done again, this court shall exercise its powers to initiate proceedings of contempt against those officers for their indiscretion”, DB said while directing the respondents to complete the process of creating 334 posts within a period of 60 days.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
