Rajasthan High Court: In an application for suspension of sentence where the advocates raised the issue of the Judicial employees of Subordinate Courts being on mass leave and non-issuance of copies on record to litigants and lawyers, a single-judge bench of Ashok Kumar Jain, J., held that the abstention of work or mass leave by judicial employees of Subordinate Courts (District Courts) of the State is illegal and uncalled for. The Court called upon every employee of District Judiciary (Subordinate Courts) to resume the duty latest by 10.00 A.M. on 25-07-2025 failing which the Court issued various directions to the District Judges and the State.
Background
In an application for suspension of sentence the advocate for the accused submitted that he had not received copies of some case related documents as the staff was on strike. Some lawyers present raised the issue that the Courts were locked, and there was no alternative arrangement for issuing copies of the record to litigants or lawyers, stating that no one was addressing their plight and sufferings. The Registrar (Judicial) also submitted a detailed report regarding the abstention of staff from working in subordinate Courts. Further, a notice-cum-representation was sent to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan (‘CM’), through the Chief Secretary, signed by the State President and General Secretary of Rajasthan Nyayik Karamchari Sangh (‘Sangh’), for indefinite abstention (mass leave) from 18-07-2025. Since then, the District Court staff has been on mass leave, paralyzing the functioning of subordinate Courts in Rajasthan.
Court’s Assessment and Directions
The Court noted that in Rajendra Singh Verma v. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court had interpreted Article 235 of Constitution and laid down that the “mechanism of vesting of control of Subordinate Courts to High Courts is to ensure independence of judiciary.” The Court observed that ‘independence’ means free from all influences but in disciplined manner, which includes communication or redressal in a disciplined manner and not in free style manner. The Court observed that the act of the Sangh addressing a letter directly to the CM through the Chief Secretary, instead of through the Registrar General, was a serious act of indiscipline, on part of signatories to letter dated 17-07-2025.
The Court noted the recent transition in the office of the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court, with the previous Chief Justice being transferred and elevated as the Chief Justice of Madras High Court and new Chief Justice from Madras High Court assuming charge as the Chief Justice of the Court on 21-07-2025. During this transition, the Subordinate Courts’ staff resorted to mass leave without proper intimation (notice) and information to Chief Justice. Even the High Court administration was not informed by Sangh, before proceeding on mass leave from 18-07-2025.
The Court noted that in T.K. Rangarajan v. Govt. of T.N., (2003) 6 SCC 581, the Supreme Court held that the Government employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike and there is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go on strike and any strike cannot be justified on any equitable ground. The Court further noted that in Harish Uppal (Ex-Capt.) v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45, the Supreme Court has enlarged the definition of Article 21 and held that lawyers do not have the right to strike as it affects the fundamental rights of litigant to speedy justice.
The Court observed that when in a system, lawyers who are indispensable part of the system in providing access to justice cannot resort to strike then how can employees who are getting bread and butter from money paid as tax by poor citizens of this country can resort to a strike. The Court noted that the judicial employees are already getting more salaries and emoluments than similarly placed Government employees of the State and yet agreeing to the demand of redesigning of cadre strength, the Full Court of this Court has recommended the State for taking requisite action.
“If litigants are facing troubles in the temple of justice, then nothing remains to be tolerated.”
The Court noted that the Court staffs’ strikes disrupt the judicial functioning and it hampers the working of administration of justice. The strikes in essential services like judicial administration are impermissible. The Court also noted that to maintain the essential services in the State, there is a legislation known as the Essential Services Maintenance Act (‘ESMA’) and to continue Court services the ESMA can be invoked but to be exercised in appropriate cases, as and when situation so warrants.
The Court held that the abstention of work or mass leave by judicial employees of Subordinate Courts (District Courts) of State is illegal and uncalled for. The Court called upon every employee of District Judiciary (Subordinate Courts) to resume the duty latest by 10:00 A.M. on 25-07-2025 failing which the Court issues following directions:
- The District Judges shall organize a meeting with District Collector and District Superintendent of Police, if the employees failed to report on duty by 10:30 A.M. on 25-07-2025, to ensure alternative working arrangement of Courts.
- The Collector of every district shall ensure that services of adequate number of IT assistants and qualified Home Guards be provided at the disposal of District Judge to resume work of the Courts in the District.
- The District Judges shall also have meeting with office bearers of bar association and seek voluntary and pro-bono service of young lawyer(s), who have just joined the bar to provide access to justice to needy, poor and downtrodden people.
- In case any record or any document is found as missing during this temporary work arrangement then the liability and responsibility is of the employee who is permanently posted on that seat and assigned the work of upkeeping of record.
- The District Judges shall also ensure that no harm is caused to any of such individual(s) who joined the duty or engaged on temporary work arrangement basis.
- The Bar Association is also requested to assist respective District Judge(s) as it is need of the hour to show that the Bar along with the Bench are the two wheels of same chariot of justice.
- The District Judge(s) shall also have the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such employee(s) who failed to obey his command and to initiate action against the individual(s) who are in forefront and instigating other employee(s) to continue to resort to abstain from work.
-
The District Judge(s) has power and authority to take action under the Service law which includes transfer from one place to another (within district), issuance of charge-sheet under the Conduct Rules, suspension or any other action as situation warrants.
The Court further noted that if situation so warrant, the District Judges shall conduct discreet inquiry about the individual(s) who are catalyst or behind the entire agitation and continue to instigate the employees to abstain from work. After enquiry, proper action may be taken under the service law which includes suspension, issuance of charge-sheet or taking any other action as permissible under the rules. Also, if a particular person is creating chaotic situation and disturbance in maintaining order and discipline, his transfer may be recommended from the district other than where he/she is posted presently (out of district) to the High Court. The District Judge(s) shall submit daily report to the Registrar General and the Registrar General may guide them after assessing the situation. After compilation, the reports shall be placed before the Chief Justice on 28-07-2025, by the Registrar General.
The Court requested all the judicial employees to resume their duties as indiscipline will not be tolerated by the institution at any cost. If the employees of District Courts failed to resume their duties till 28-07-2025, then ESMA can be invoked to maintain discipline and resume the work of the Court.
[Ibra v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1687/2024, decided on 24-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Jiya UR Rahman, Gordhan Singh Fauzdar, Advocates
For the respondent: Vijay Singh Yadav, PP, Amit Kumar, SHO, P.S. Jurerha
