Kerala High Court Slams State's 'Arbitrary' Denial of Compensatory Leave to Gazetted Officers
The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant ruling, declaring the state government's denial of compensatory leave to gazetted officers of the high court as illegal and arbitrary. This decision came during a hearing on a plea filed by the registered association of gazetted employees, who sought compensatory leaves for working on public holidays such as Onam and Christmas.
Justice N Nagaresh's Observations on Constitutional Independence
Justice N Nagaresh, presiding over the case, emphasized that the objective of Article 229 of the Constitution is to secure the independence of the high court. He noted that this independence is crucial for the functioning of India's democratic government. The court highlighted that the high court must remain free from government interference and maintain absolute control over its staff, as per constitutional provisions.
The order explicitly stated: "It is declared that denial of compensatory leave to the gazetted officers of the high court is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 229 of the Constitution of India." This strong wording underscores the court's stance on protecting judicial autonomy.
Background of the Dispute and State Government's Actions
The conflict arose when the state government amended the Kerala Service Rules in 2022, making gazetted officers ineligible for compensatory leave. This move was challenged by the officers, who argued that their duties during court vacations and holidays warranted such leaves. The gazetted officers are responsible for supervising, coordinating, and ensuring the completion of various administrative and judicial tasks, even during major holidays.
Key points from the court's findings include:
- The state government rejected proposals from the chief justice of the high court without providing adequate reasons.
- Functional realities in the high court differ significantly from other government departments, with work continuing during holidays.
- Vacation sittings require full processes like filing, case allocation, and order issuance, necessitating officer supervision.
Court's Directives and Implications for Judicial Independence
Justice Nagaresh directed the state and concerned authorities to reconsider the high court's proposal in strict conformity with Article 229 and in light of the chief justice's recommendations. A three-month deadline was set for this reconsideration. The court stressed that recommendations from the chief justice regarding internal administration should ordinarily be approved by the state, and any refusal must be backed by strong justifications.
This ruling reinforces the principle that the high court's independence, as enshrined in the Constitution, cannot be compromised by arbitrary state actions. It sets a precedent for similar cases involving judicial staff rights and government overreach.
