Plea In Delhi High Court Seeks To Enhance Monthly Remuneration Of Law Researchers With Arrears
A plea has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking to enhance the monthly remuneration of its law researchers from Rs. 65,000 to Rs. 80,000 along with arrears.The matter came up for hearing before a division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul on May 29. However, Justice Digpaul recused from hearing it as his brother's son was working as a law researcher. “As...
A plea has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking to enhance the monthly remuneration of its law researchers from Rs. 65,000 to Rs. 80,000 along with arrears.
The matter came up for hearing before a division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul on May 29.
However, Justice Digpaul recused from hearing it as his brother's son was working as a law researcher.
“As one of us (Ajay Digpaul, J.) is not in a position to hear this matter, list this matter before another Bench of which one of us is not a member, subject to orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 2 July 2025,” the Court said.
The petition has been filed by 13 individuals who were or are employed on contractual basis as Law Researchers with the Delhi High Court between 2018 to 2025.
They have sought implementation of directions issued by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court enhancing the monthly remuneration of Law Researchers to Rs. 80,000 with effect from October 01, 2022, along with arrears and interest at 18% per annum.
The plea states that on August 16, 2023, the Chief Justice had approved enhancement of remuneration to Rs. 80,000 with effect from October 01, 2022. However, it has been alleged that such an order has not been implemented yet.
“Almost two years have elapsed since the proposal was first sent to GNCTD, and even after the clarifications were provided on 07.05.2024, the order has not been implemented. The failure to act upon the Hon'ble Chief Justice's order dated 16.08.2023 and continued withholding of arrears, despite clear administrative approvals and constitutional sanction under Article 229, necessitates the present writ petition,” the plea states.
It has been stated that the action of Delhi's Lieutenant Governor in not approving or rejecting the recommendation of the Chief Justice and sitting over the recommendation is perverse.
The plea adds that such an action deprives the Petitioners and others from the benefit or advantage of drawing higher monthly remuneration for the hard work and long hours the Law Researchers put in during their course of attachment with the Judges.
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Ankit Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhishek Taneja, Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Mr. Sahil Sharma, Mr. Shashank Agarwal, Mr. Bhavya Khatreja, Mr. Surya Sirohi, Advs
Counsel for Respondents: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, SPC with Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv. Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, Standing Counsel with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich and Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Advs. for R-2
Title: RUSHANT MALHOTRA & ORS v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS