The Allahabad High Court has reprimanded the Uttar Pradesh government for its continued delay in notifying the Allahabad High Court ‘Court Manager’ Service Rules, 2022 and the Uttar Pradesh District Courts ‘Court Manager’ Service Rules, 2022. The Court directed the Chief Secretary of the state to appear in person and provide a concrete timeline for the implementation of these rules.
Background of the Case
The case (WRIT – A No. 4860 of 2019) was filed by Rashmi Singh and seven others, who have been serving as Court Managers in various courts on an honorarium basis. The petitioners sought the creation of permanent posts and their subsequent absorption into the system.
The crux of the matter revolves around the financial implications of the rules, which require state government approval before notification. The petitioners contended that under Article 229 of the Constitution, the High Court has the authority to frame these rules, which only require formal approval by the Governor. The state government, however, has failed to act despite repeated judicial directions.
Key Legal Issues
Delay in Notification of Service Rules: The rules, essential for the regularization of Court Managers, have been pending with the State Government since May 12, 2023 (District Courts) and September 2, 2023 (High Court).
Judicial Independence and State Cooperation: The High Court underscored the need for the State Government to assist the judiciary in fulfilling its constitutional obligations.
Repeated Non-Compliance of Supreme Court Orders: The Supreme Court, in Rashmi Singh & Ors. v. Pramod Kumar Srivastava & Anr., had directed the High Court to expedite the case, but the state’s inaction has persisted.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Presided over by Justice Alok Mathur, the Court expressed its displeasure at the lackadaisical approach of the State Government in taking timely action. The bench noted that the Supreme Court had twice directed an expedited resolution, yet there was no significant progress.
Sharp Remarks Against Bureaucratic Inaction
Highlighting the government’s lethargy, the Court stated:
“The task of dispensation of justice has been given to the judiciary by the Constitution, but the State Government, wherever required, has to cooperate and provide the necessary wherewithal to assist the judicial system to enable it to achieve their constitutional goal.”
The Court further emphasized that this was not an isolated case but indicative of a larger pattern of administrative inefficiency. Similar delays were observed in another case (Writ A No. 1781 of 2024), concerning the categorization of Stenographers in U.P. Civil Courts.
The High Court noted that, despite repeated adjournments, the state has failed to provide a specific timeline for notifying the rules. The government had previously claimed that the rules were under “final consultation” and would soon be placed before the Cabinet. However, the Model Code of Conduct (due to upcoming elections) was cited as an excuse for further delay.
Expressing frustration, Justice Mathur ordered Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to appear in court on March 11, 2025, with clear instructions on when the notification would be issued. The Court emphasized:
“Despite personal affidavits and repeated opportunities, not much is being done. The State Government cannot delay judicial administration under the garb of bureaucratic hurdles.”
The case will next be heard on March 11, 2025.
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Akhilesh Kumar Kalra, Avinash Chandra, Chinmay Mishra, Mahendra Nath Yadav, Manish Singh Chauhan, Manu Kumar Srivastava, Paritosh Shukla, and Sandeep Kumar Srivastava. The respondents were represented by Additional Standing Government Counsel and Senior Advocates C.S.C., A.S.G., Ambrish Rai, Anand Dwivedi, Gaurav Mehrotra, Neerav Chitravanshi, and U.N. Mishra
