Supreme Court rejects State's plea against retrospective pay hike for Delhi HC law researchers

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the Delhi government's appeal against a Delhi High Court order that directed retrospective payment of enhanced remuneration to law researchers attached to the High Court [The Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Rushant Malhotra & Ors.]. .A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi passed the order upholding the hike in monthly salary of law researchers from ₹65,000 to ₹80,000 with effect from October 2022. .The dispute traces back to a decision of August 2023 taken by a committee of judges of the Delhi High Court approving a proposal to enhance the remuneration of law researchers from ₹65,000 to ₹80,000 per month with effect from October 1, 2022. The proposal was approved by the Chief Justice of the High Court and communicated to the Delhi government for necessary approval.The government approved the enhancement on September 3, 2025. However, it made the raise applicable prospectively only from September 2, 2025.Meanwhile, while the proposal was pending approval from the government, some law researchers had approached the High Court by way of a writ petition seeking implementation of the hike with retrospective effect. The High Court allowed the plea and directed that the enhanced remuneration be paid from October 1, 2022, along with arrears.The State then moved the Supreme Court. .Extra ₹9.45 crore burden: State moves Supreme Court against retrospective pay hike for Delhi HC law researchers.In its plea, the Delhi government argued that while the Chief Justice of a High Court has the power to frame rules regarding service conditions of court staff, any decision relating to salaries and allowances requires approval of the Governor under Article 229(2) of the Constitution.Since such payments are made from the Consolidated Fund of the State, the government contended that financial implications, including the date from which enhanced remuneration is to take effect, cannot be treated as a mere administrative formality. .According to the plea, fixing a retrospective date directly determines the quantum of arrears and the overall financial burden on the State exchequer. By directing retrospective payment, the High Court effectively imposed a substantial unbudgeted liability on the State without allowing it to exercise its constitutional role in financial approval, the plea argued. The government further submitted that fixation of a cut-off date is a recognised executive function and that financial constraints are a valid ground for granting benefits prospectively. According to the plea, retrospective implementation in this case would impose an additional burden of approximately ₹9.45 crore on the State exchequer.The government also contended that if the effective date of enhancement is treated as lying exclusively within the domain of the Chief Justice, the constitutional requirement of approval would be rendered meaningless..It further argued that the High Court failed to consider settled Supreme Court precedents holding that financial constraints and fiscal planning are valid grounds for fixing prospective cut-off dates for implementation of service benefits..The plea was filed through advocate Swati Ghildiyal. .Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.