The Rajasthan High Court strongly reprimanded subordinate court employees in the state for staging a mass strike and termed their collective abstention from work as illegal. The court observed that judicial staff, salaried by taxpayers, have no right to disrupt the administration of justice. It emphasized that while employees may have pending demands regarding cadre restructuring, resort to strike cannot be justified, particularly when judicial independence and litigant rights are at stake.
Justice Ashok Kumar Jain presided over the proceedings and directed that all district court staff must return to duty by 10:00 a.m. on the specified deadline. The bench asserted that prolonged leave without authorization amounted to mass indiscipline and struck at the core of the judicial mandate to serve the public without interruption. The High Court noted that the court staff had bypassed proper internal communication channels, instead addressing their demands directly to the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary, which it regarded as a serious act of insubordination.
The court underscored that the pending issue of cadre restructuring, which had been approved in principle by the court's full bench and forwarded to the state government, did not justify paralysing judicial functioning. It highlighted precedents confirming that lawyers lack the right to strike, since doing so impairs litigants’ fundamental rights to speedy justice. By extension, court employees could not expect greater latitude. The court stressed that judicial and ministerial employees draw salaries from public funds and must uphold their duties without resorting to disruptive tactics.
Directions were immediately issued for contingencies should staff fail to resume work: district judges were instructed to coordinate with district collectors and police superintendents to make alternative arrangements. This included deploying IT assistants and home guards in court operations, and inviting young lawyers to provide pro bono or voluntary assistance so that litigants are not denied access to justice. The court also held district judges responsible for ensuring no employee engaged in temporary work is harassed or penalized.
The High Court highlighted responsibilities in preserving court records during temporary arrangements, stating the employee originally assigned to a seat is accountable for any loss or misplacement. It stressed that the bar associations must collaborate with the bench to maintain uninterrupted court function. Further, the court empowered district judges to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those refusing to return to duty or instigating the strike. Transfer, suspension, or charging under service rules were flagged as appropriate administrative responses.
If disruption persisted past the deadline, invocation of the Essential Services Maintenance Act was warned as a possible measure to ensure continuity of judicial services. The court linked these steps to precedent and constitutional duty, cautioning that indefinite suspension of court staff deprived litigants of justice and undermined public confidence in the judiciary.
The court identified a breakdown of normal communication protocols when the Rajasthan Judicial Employees Union addressed its demand for indefinite staff leave directly to the Chief Minister, rather than through the judiciary’s established channels. It emphasized that such a break in protocol compromised judicial independence and administrative order. While acknowledging cadre restructuring as a legitimate concern, the court specified that the mechanism for addressing it had already been activated via formal processes.
The bench cited Supreme Court interpretations of constitutional provisions, including Article 235, to clarify that judicial independence must be exercised within a disciplined framework. In keeping with earlier jurisprudence, the court held that employees receiving public salaries first owe a duty of uninterrupted service. In its view, prolonged strike without authorization was neither equitable nor constitutional, especially when basic civil infrastructure and citizens’ legal rights depended on daily court functioning.
The High Court’s directives also included requiring daily reports from each district judge to the Registrar General, who in turn would update the Chief Justice on the status of resumption efforts and attendant disciplinary measures. Transparency and administrative oversight were deemed essential to restore normalcy in the judicial system. All actions—including disciplinary steps—were to be reported to the High Court to ensure accountability.
By clearly delineating the institutional boundaries between employee activism and judicial responsibility, the court reaffirmed that its primary commitment lies with ensuring unhindered access to justice for the public. The High Court resisted demands for strike action, insisting that proper channels and internal procedures must be followed for redress. The ruling voiced the larger principle that courts exist to serve citizens, and employees cannot leverage disruption as a means to press for demands, especially when mechanisms for dialogue are available and functional.
In sum, the High Court declared that mass abstention from work by district court staff was unlawful. It directed immediate resumption of duties, laid out specific contingency arrangements for court operations, urged voluntary professional support, and authorized disciplinary consequences for defaulters. The order underscores that institutional discipline, timely communication, and uninterrupted judicial output are non-negotiable imperatives—even in the face of employee grievances.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.