The Kerala High Court held that the denial of compensatory leave to Gazetted Officers working in the High Court establishment is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The court delivered this ruling while deciding a writ petition filed by the Kerala High Court Gazetted Officers’ Association, which represents Gazetted Officers employed in the High Court. The petition challenged the decision of the State Government to amend the Kerala Service Rules in a manner that made Gazetted Officers ineligible for compensatory leave, a benefit previously available to them for work performed on holidays. Pursuant to this amendment, an office memorandum was issued by the High Court administration withdrawing the grant of compensatory leave to Gazetted Officers, prompting the association to approach the court.
The court examined the background and context in which compensatory leave had been historically granted to Gazetted Officers of the High Court. It noted that the functioning of the High Court is distinct from that of other government departments, as judicial and administrative work often continues even during public holidays. During vacation periods and holidays such as Onam and Christmas, the court conducts vacation sittings and handles urgent matters, which require the presence and supervision of Gazetted Officers. Their responsibilities include overseeing filing, scrutiny, listing of cases, issuance of orders, and ensuring that judicial work proceeds smoothly. The court observed that Gazetted Officers are required to work beyond normal hours and on holidays to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of the institution, making compensatory leave a necessary recognition of their additional workload.
The amendment to the Kerala Service Rules, which removed the eligibility of Gazetted Officers for compensatory leave, was examined in detail. Following the amendment, the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court had directed the Registrar General to seek an exemption for High Court Gazetted Officers from the operation of the amended rules. Two separate requests were made to the State Government seeking continuation of compensatory leave for these officers, citing the special nature of High Court functioning and the constitutional scheme under Article 229. Both requests were rejected by the government without assigning specific or substantive reasons. The association contended that these rejections undermined the constitutional autonomy of the High Court and interfered with its internal administration.
The State Government defended its decision by arguing that compensatory leave is an additional benefit and not a vested right, and that the amendment to the service rules was a policy decision within its authority. It relied on provisions stating that the whole time of a government officer is at the disposal of the government and contended that Gazetted Officers, being senior officers, could not claim compensatory leave as a matter of right. The government also sought to justify its decision by pointing out that exemptions had been selectively granted to certain sectors and not uniformly across all departments.
The High Court rejected the government’s justification and placed significant reliance on Article 229 of the Constitution, which vests control over the conditions of service of High Court staff in the Chief Justice. The court explained that Article 229 is intended to secure the independence of the judiciary by ensuring that the High Court has autonomy over its internal administration, including service conditions of its officers and employees. It held that recommendations and proposals made by the Chief Justice in matters concerning the administration of the High Court carry constitutional weight and cannot be disregarded by the executive without strong, cogent, and sufficient reasons.
The court found that the government’s rejection of the exemption requests lacked adequate reasoning and failed to address the specific concerns raised by the High Court regarding the workload and functional realities faced by Gazetted Officers. The rejection letters did not consider the constitutional position of the High Court or the necessity of compensatory leave in ensuring the smooth functioning of judicial administration. The court held that such unexplained refusals amounted to arbitrary exercise of power and were inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of Article 229.
On this basis, the Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition. It set aside the government communications rejecting the High Court’s request for exemption and declared that the denial of compensatory leave to Gazetted Officers of the High Court establishment was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 229 of the Constitution. The court directed the authorities to reconsider the proposal of the High Court regarding compensatory leave and to take a decision in accordance with constitutional principles and the recommendations of the Chief Justice within a stipulated period. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of respecting the administrative independence of the High Court and underscored that executive actions affecting the service conditions of High Court staff must align with the constitutional framework safeguarding judicial autonomy.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.