The Delhi government has moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order directing retrospective salary hikes for its law researchers, arguing that fixing a cut-off date is an executive function and that retrospective benefits would impose an added burden of about Rs.9.45 crore.
The Delhi government approached the Supreme Court to contest a ruling by the Delhi High Court that mandated the retrospective payment of increased salaries to law researchers associated with the court.
This dispute originates from an August 2023 decision by a committee of High Court judges, which approved a proposal to raise the remuneration for law researchers from Rs.65,000 to Rs.80,000 per month, effective from October 1, 2022.
The Chief Justice of the High Court sanctioned the proposal, which was then sent to the Delhi government for the required approval.
ALSO READ: Law Researchers Move Delhi HC Over Salary Hike Delay and Unpaid Arrears Since 2022
The government approved the pay increase on September 3, 2025, but decided to apply it only from September 2, 2025, prospectively.
In the meantime, while the government’s approval was pending, some law researchers filed a writ petition with the High Court, requesting immediate implementation of the salary hike with retrospective effect.
The High Court granted their request, ordering that the increased remuneration be disbursed from October 1, 2022, along with arrears.
The Delhi government is now contesting this directive in the Supreme Court. In its appeal, the government argues that while the Chief Justice of a High Court has the authority to establish rules regarding court staff service conditions, any decisions about salaries require the Governor’s approval under Article 229(2) of the Constitution.
Since these payments are drawn from the State’s Consolidated Fund, the government claims that financial implications, including the effective date of enhanced remuneration, cannot be considered a mere administrative detail.
According to the appeal, establishing a retrospective date influences the amount of arrears and the overall financial burden on the state’s finances. By mandating retrospective payments, the High Court has essentially placed a significant unplanned liability on the government, undermining its constitutional role in financial approvals.
The government further asserts that determining a cut-off date is a recognized executive function and that financial limitations are valid grounds for implementing benefits prospectively. It estimates that retrospective application in this situation would incur an additional burden of around Rs.9.45 crore on the state treasury.
ALSO READ: 8th Pay Commission: Full Details On Salary Hike, Pension & Key Changes Ahead
The government also contends that if the effective date of the salary enhancement is deemed solely under the Chief Justice’s purview, it effectively nullifies the constitutional requirement for approval.
Additionally, it argues that the High Court did not take into account established Supreme Court rulings, which indicate that financial constraints and fiscal planning are acceptable reasons for establishing prospective cut-off dates for service benefits.
This plea is set to be heard on February 16 by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and has been filed through advocate Swati Ghildiyal.
Case Title: The Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Rushant Malhotra & Ors.