Delhi High Court orders vacancy, workload audit after suicide of staffer due to work pressure

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said that it is conscious of the working conditions of staff in Delhi courts and has ordered an audit of the vacancies and workloads of court staff in the wake of suicide of a court staffer in the national capital.

A Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that the suicide of the staffer was unfortunate and the High Court is taking action on the administrative side to address the issues faced by court staff.

“We are doing everything. We are conscious, we have ordered an audit of the vacancies and workload on court staff after the court staffer committed suicide,” the Chief Justice remarked.

He also said that relief is being extended to the family of the deceased staffer.

"High Court administration is conscious of the fact and on the administrative side we are taking all possible action. We have also ordered an audit of the vacancy position and requirement of the work. We are conscious of it and we are working on it. To rationalise the requirement, to rationalise the cadre structure, steps are being taken to conduct such an audit. Based on the report we will act on it. In addition, whatever relief that is permissible is also being extended to the family. We immediately swung into action. I don’t think anything is lacking,” the Bench remarked.

The Court recorded the same in its order before disposing of the petition filed in light of the death of a court staffer.

"We have further been informed by respondent 1 that appropriate steps are being taken by the High Court on its administrative side to fill the vacancies to make an overall assessment to rationalise the distribution of work among the court staff. We have no doubt in our mind that such a course of action shall be evolved within the shortest possible time and adequate steps will be taken. With the aforesaid observations the petition is disposed off," the order said.

A court staffer at Delhi’s Saket District Court died by suicide on January 9 citing work pressure.

According to reports, the 35-year-old deceased was employed as an ahlmad (court record keeper).

The police said that the staffer jumped from a building inside the court premises. He was rushed to hospital where he was declared dead.

Police said a suicide note was recovered from the spot, in which the deceased cited extreme work pressure and mental stress. In the note, he stated that he was taking the step of his own volition and did not hold anyone responsible.

He added that he was around 60 percent differently abled and faced difficulties coping with workload and the financial constraints that prevented him from opting for an early retirement.

In light of the incident, the present petition was filed before the High Court to fill vacancies in Delhi’s courts and reduce workload on the staff.

Thee petitioner, Anand Legal Aid Forum, also sought an FIR into the death.

The petitioner said that that according to a report by Times of India, the deceased staffer was under immense work pressure and that TOI was informed the same by another staff.

"If the statement is incorrect and if this report of TOI is incorrect then? Listen, if this statement made by the staff based on which the TOI has published a report is incorrect then what? You must know that he was posted as Ahlmad only in November. Prior to this posting he was having a more strenuous work. Are you aware? He was posted on the post of Ahlmad on promotion only in November. The post which he held prior to his posting involved more strenuous work. This is a fact. Number 2, he was posted in a court which was completely digitised. So handling 3000 files attracts public attention but it is not correct," the Court remarked.

Regarding the prayer to register an FIR, the Court noted that a case of unnatural death under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has already been registered by the police.

"So these proceedings under Section 194 are going on, postmortem is being conducted, its report is awaited and these proceedings are conducted by the Executive Magistrate," the Bench observed.

In light of the same, it disposed of the plea without passing any directions.

"The reported incident is unfortunate. We have been informed that proceeding sunder Section 194 of the BNSS are going on and a report is waited. Accordingly further action as may be warranted under the law will depend on the outcome of the proceedings under section 194 and therefore we do not find at this juncture to issue any directions for lodging of the FIR," the Court stated in its order.