Delhi HC Judges Recuse From Hearing Pleas Over Pay Commission Benefits After Lawyer Alleges They Are 'Choosing And Picking' Cases From List

Two judges of the Delhi High Court recused from hearing a batch of petitions concerning grant of benefits as per the Pay Commission recommendations, after one of the lawyers claimed that the division bench was “choosing and picking” cases to be heard.

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul called the situation “deeply disturbing” and said that the matters be listed before another Bench subject to orders of the Chief Justice.

“Clearly, Ms ABC has no faith in this Bench, and feels that it is arbitrarily choosing the cases it wants to hear. In these circumstances, applying the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to have been done, we do not think it appropriate for us to retain these matters with us. Accordingly, list these matters before another Bench, subject to orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 4 March 2025,”the Court said.

The batch of petitions were filed by the Union Government from the years 2022-2024. The issue was with respect the date from which the respondent individuals would be entitled to the benefit of the Pay Commission recommendations.

When the matter was called out, the bench informed the lawyer that it would not be proper for the Court to prioritize the batch of petitions since it had 106 other matters listed on board, which included  several pressing cases concerning casual labourers, widows waiting for pension, etc.

As the Court proposed to re-notify the pay commission matter for another date, the lawyer took “serious umbrage” and contended that she had every right to argue the cases the same day itself.

“We would not have taken exception to these submissions of Ms ABC, as we are used to Counsel expecting that every matter should be heard. After all, every citizen has a right to aspire to dispensation of justice,” the Court said. However, it recorded that the lawyer did not stop there and said the bench is “choosing and picking” cases to be heard.

"This is deeply disturbing," the bench remarked. It added, “Our endeavour has always been to dispose of as many matters as possible. In doing so, we have to factor in the urgency of the matter and its longevity. Else, we would be doing more injustice than justice. We tried to explain this to Ms ABC, but she is not convinced...we do not think it appropriate for us to retain these matters with us.”

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ANR v. ALL INDIA POSTAL ACCOUNTS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 248

Click here to read order