Delhi HC seeks govt reply on plea by law researchers over delayed salary hike despite approval

New Delhi [India], July 8 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Tueday ought a repone from the Delhi government on a petition filed by a group of law reearcher who worked with High Court judge between 2018 and 2025. The petitioner are demanding the implementation of a 2023 order that raied their monthly remuneration to R 80,000.
A Diviion Bench compriing Jutice Prathiba M Singh and Jutice Rajneeh Kumar Gupta oberved that law reearcher ignificantly contribute to the judicial ytem, often working late night and weekend. The Court remarked that, on the face of it, the Delhi government mut decide on the matter.
The judge noted that while the Chief Jutice approved the enhanced remuneration in 2023, it wa duly cleared by the High Court adminitration, it ha not yet been enforced by the Delhi government. The Court ha now iued a notice and et the next hearing for Augut 21.
Previouly, Jutice Navin Chawla and Ajay Digpaul recued themelve from the cae, citing conflict of interet.
The plea alo eek arrear dating back to October 1, 2022, along with 18 per cent annual interet, highlighting the financial delay depite clear adminitrative backing.
The petitioner referred to Article 229 of the Contitution, under which the Delhi High Court framed it Etablihment Rule in 1972, creating over 120 law reearcher pot.
Although multiple alary reviion had been approved, R 25,000 initially, raied to R 35,000 in 2017, R 50,000 in 2018, R 65,000 in 2019, and R 80,000 in 2022, the lat approved hike ha remained talled with the Delhi government.
Depite repeated repreentation and even RTI application filed in 2024, law reearcher dicovered that the alary hike propoal, forwarded to the GNCTD in September 2023, remain unapproved. RTI replie indicated that crucial information wa being withheld under exemption claue, and bureaucratic hurdle in the Finance and Law Department have delayed any progre.
Jutice C Harihankar, during an earlier hearing, acknowledged that law reearcher often work longer hour than judge and that their pay lag behind their counterpart in the Supreme Court.He emphaied that after nearly two year of waiting ince the Chief Jutice cleared the R 80,000 propoal, continued inaction i unjutified.
The petitioner argue that thi prolonged delay, depite contitutional and adminitrative approval, violate their right and warrant immediate judicial intervention to enure fair compenation. (ANI)