Jammu Kashmir High Court Orders Creation of 334 Staff Posts Within 60 Days

   

SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the Union Territory Government to finalise the creation of 334 staff posts within 60 days to address the acute shortage of personnel at the High Court and district courts, Jammu newspaper, Daily Excelsior reported. The directive, issued by a Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Sanjay Dhar, follows a protracted delay in implementing the staffing requirements initially proposed in 2014.

Follow Us OnG-News | Whatsapp

The petition, originally filed in 2017, has evolved significantly from its initial focus on monetary benefits for court employees to encompass the broader issue of insufficient staff and infrastructure in the judiciary. Highlighting the inadequacy, the Division Bench (DB) noted that the High Court’s judge strength has increased from 14 to 25 over the years, necessitating urgent enhancements in staff.

The DB observed that despite multiple communications since 2014 and repeated meetings between the High Court and the Government, progress was obstructed by bureaucratic inertia. Referring to an order dated February 8, 2023, the court remarked that the Government neither approved nor outright rejected the proposal for additional staff. Moreover, an earlier assurance by the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs to forward the matter to the Finance Department was subsequently retracted.

While acknowledging the creation of 24 posts in May 2023 to meet immediate needs for newly elevated judges, the Bench criticised the Government’s overall approach as “laggardly and casual.” It admonished the executive for questioning the judiciary’s staffing requirements, asserting that such actions constituted “gross contempt.”

The court emphasised that determining staffing needs is the prerogative of the Chief Justice, and any further delays or attempts to reassess the judiciary’s proposals could lead to contempt proceedings. The DB clarified that it would only consider financial constraints as a valid reason for deferral but would not tolerate further bureaucratic hurdles.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here