New Delhi, September 25
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its reply to the Supreme Court notice on the issue of its 25 judges taking “mass casual” leave on April 19 over alleged differences with the Chief Justice, has assailed their action, saying there was nothing like casual leave for judges.
Referring to the resolution of 1965 at the Chief Justices’ conference, laying down a code of conduct for judges, the High Court Registrar-General, in an affidavit said: “Casual leave is not a matter of right but is intended to be taken only in case of emergency such as urgent private business,
unforeseen illness or death; that in fact, there is nothing like casual leave for the judges, it is only casual absence...”
The affidavit was filed in reply to a public interest litigation (PIL), challenging the action of the judges on the grounds that they were not entitled to take such a decision which indicated that they were reacting against any “act or omission committed” on the part of the system, which they did not like. As such, an action by them would amount to “striking” work.
The PIL, filed by
Advocate R K Rathore and S S Dhaiya, further had stated that the action of the High Court judges to take “mass leave” would shake the confidence of the people in the judiciary and the judicial system.
The matter is listed for hearing on September 27.
The apex court Bench of Mr Justice S N Variava and Mr Justice H K Sema which had issued notice to the High Court’s Registrar General on April 26, had during the last hearing on September 13, directed senior advocate P P Rao, appearing for the High Court, to place on record additional documents relating to the case.
The court, in the order, had recorded that the PIL had raised “a matter of great public interest” as it had sought to lay down guidelines pertaining to judicial propriety.
The Registrar-General in his affidavit further said that on
every occasion when a judge desired to avail casual leave, he must inform the Chief Justice in advance and in writing, specifying the reasons, and the Chief Justice must have the power to treat it as earned leave, if he so deemed it fit.
But when a judge wanted to leave the headquarters, he must ask for earned leave, it said.
In a voluminous reply, the Registrar-General has annexed letters of all judges of the High Court in the matter, the correspondence of its Chief Justice with the Chief Justice of India and the Union Law Secretary on the issue.
The Registrar-General stated that Under Section 13 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and as per the instructions issued by the Union Government thereunder, the competent authority to grant or refuse leave “insofar as the Punjab and Haryana High Court is concerned is the President of India.”
He has pleaded the apex court to pass such order in the case as “it may be deemed appropriate in the interest of justice.”
The apex court, however, had dismissed another PIL, alleging that the judges by taking the mass leave had committed contempt of court.
