Court Managers Move Bombay HC Seeking Regularisation Of Services & Fixing Minimum Pay Scale; Court Seeks Reply From State, Union [Read Petition]

Division bench of Justice KK Tated and Justice NR Borkar heard the petition on Tuesday. At the outset, AGP Kirti Kulkarni submitted that the State has not been served with a copy of the said petition.

Petitioner's counsel Advocate Pradnya Talekar instructed by Talekar Associates submitted that other respondents have been served but none appeared on their behalf.

The bench noted the main issue involved in the petition is regarding regularisation of petitioners who are appointed as Court Managers in 2013 and 2016. Court recorded that the Apex Court in the matter of All India Judges Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. held that the Court Manager post is necessary in District Courts.

Court directed the petitioners to serve all the respondents again along with entire proceeding immediately and directed the respondents to file their affidavit-in-reply, if any, on or before October 20, 2020.

The petition states-

"The then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Justice S.H. Kapadia in consultation with the Minister of Law and Justice formulated the National Court Management Systems - Policy and Action Plan published on 27.09.2012 with a desire to establish comprehensive Court Management Systems for the country that will enhance quality, responsiveness and timeliness of courts, which states that the posts of Court Managers are necessary for professional working of Registries."

Pursuant to the same, posts of Court Managers were created in every judicial district and High Court in the country to assist the principal district judge and the Chief Justice in their administrative functions. A budget of 300 Crores was sanctioned in the 13th Finance Commission Report, for appointment of Court Managers in all District and High Courts in the nation for a period of 5 years between 2010 to 2015.

Furthermore, the petitioners contend that a budget of Rs.26.5 Crores was sanctioned for the State of Maharashtra and despite consistent requisitions from the High Court administration, the State made appointments for these posts only in 2013, and on consolidated salaries. Only 90 lakhs were used from the sanctioned fund. After 2015, since the financial burden was shifted on the State Government, the Court Managers were continued on contractual basis, petition states.

In fact in 2018, the Supreme Court while considering issues regarding the upgradation of infrastructure for efficiency in justice delivery has directed the State Governments to regularise the services of all the Court Managers working as contractual employees. Despite a clear direction by the SC, even after passage of 2 years, no concrete action of regularisation has been taken by the State of Maharashtra, petitioners contend.

Moreover it is contended that despite a pay scale of 15,900 to 39,100 and grade pay of 7600 being determined for these posts by the Chief Justice and other administrative judges of the High Court, the petitioners were appointed on consolidated salaries.

Finally, the petitioners argue that the State Government failed to comply with directions regarding regularisation and also fixation of pay-scales as determined by the administrative judges of the High Court. The petition thus raises the important question of encroachment of the independence of judiciary, which is a basic structure of the Constitution, by the executive, petition states.

The next date of hearing is October 22.