The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant urgent hearing in a petition filed by employees of the Sikkim High Court challenging their termination from service by the High Court. [Namrata Neopaney & Ors. v The Registrar General of the High Court of Sikkim & Ors.]
The petitioner's counsel mentioned the matter before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and raised concerns regarding whether a full court of the High Court can invalidate appointments made under a previous Chief Justice.
The counsel also pressed for urgent hearing but the Court declined the request and said the matter will be heard in due course.
“This court is treated as a forum for convenience,” the Bench remarked.
The dispute stemmed from a full court decision of the Sikkim High Court terminating the service of petitioners who were appointed during the tenure of former Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder.
The petition said that the termination notices dated April 7 were issued without any underlying complaint, charge, or inquiry against the employees, effectively targeting only those appointed during the tenure of Chief Justice Somadder.
The petition alleged serious procedural lapses, stating that they were not furnished with any articles of charge, documents, or material forming the basis of the action against them.
The notices reflect a foregone conclusion to terminate services, the plea said while seeking quashing of both the full court resolution and the termination notices.
Appearing for the employees, the petitioners' counsel today told the Supreme Court,
“This is not an ordinary matter. All the employees were taken in service by earlier Chief Justice.”
He also argued that their termination flowed from a subsequent full court decision.
“Now a full court decision has been shown to terminate them,” the counsel said.
On the broader implications, the counsel said,
“There is a larger issue concerning the institution here. Resolution says former Chief Justice did not have the power to create the posts. He does have," he argued.
The Supreme Court, however, declined the request for urgent listing, with CJI Kant stating,
“Anyways no urgent listing. We will hear all this when we list it.”
The matter will now be taken up in due course.
[Read Live Coverage]