Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Surinder Singh And Others vs State Of J&K And Others on 16 March, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Sindhu Sharma
Sr. No. 2
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case: SWP No. 49 of 2011
Surinder Singh and others .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Sh. Pranav Kolhi, Sr. Advocate with
Sh. Farhan Mirza, Advocate.
Sh. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate.
v/s
State of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Sh. Amit Gupta, AAG.
Sh. Amrish Kapoor, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
1. J&K Judicial Employees Welfare Association preferred this writ petition seeking direction for the implementation of Phase II Scheme regarding re- organization of Ministerial Staff in the Subordinate Courts, as has been agreed upon by the Government and to create permanent staff and infrastructure for eight new districts subordinate courts which were created in the year 2007.
2. The court vide order dated 21.09.2015 directed that the writ petition as filed is not maintainable in view of Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in T. N. Panchayat Development Officers Association, Madra v. Secretary to Govt. of T. N., Rural Development and Local Administration Department, Madras and others, 1989 (1) MLJ 255 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahinder Kumar Gupta and others v. Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, (1995) 1 SCC 85.
3. Accordingly, the petitioners were permitted to amend the cause title of the petition and to pursue the petition for individuals. 2 SWP No. 49/2011
4. Accordingly, an application was filed on 16.02.2016 stating that the petition may be treated for personal cause of five individual persons and the cause title may be allowed to be amended.
5. In view of the said application which was allowed on 09.03.2016, cause title of the petition was amended and the five employees were permitted to pursue the matter as the petitioners.
6. Today, the two reliefs claimed in the writ petition are more or less redundant inasmuch as the Phase II of the Scheme sought to be implemented with regard to the Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Courts has already been implemented and necessary staff and infrastructure for the newly created eight districts have also been provided.
7. Counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that though in the new districts created in the year 2007, necessary staff and infrastructure was provided but that is hardly sufficient for running the courts.
8. In the event, the said staff or infrastructure is insufficient, it is a matter which requires to be dealt with first on the administrative side and then, if necessary, on the judicial side.
9. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the writ petition has outlived its utility.
10. It is accordingly directed to be consigned to record leaving it open to the petitioners or to the persons interested to agitate the matter with regard to shortage of staff and insufficiency of infrastructure in any court of the Union Territory independently on the administrative side or if necessary taking recourse of the judicial process.
(SINDHU SHARMA) (PANKAJ MITHAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU
16.03.2022
Raj Kumar