Today, On 16th February, The Supreme Court dismissed the Delhi Government’s plea against the Delhi High Court’s October 2025 order on retrospective honorarium increase for Law Researchers. It asked, “Why should the youngsters suffer because of the delay by the government?”
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition from the Delhi Government contesting the Delhi High Court’s directives issued in October 2025 regarding the retrospective increase of honorarium for Law Researchers.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi declined to hear the case.
However, the bench noted that the question of law remains open.
ALSO READ: Law Researchers Move Delhi HC Over Salary Hike Delay and Unpaid Arrears Since 2022
CJI Surya Kant asked the State’s counsel,
“Why should the youngsters suffer because of the delay by the government?”
Earlier, The High Court mandated that law researchers receive an enhanced remuneration of Rs. 80,000 per month, retroactive to October 01, 2022.
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.
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.
ALSO READ: 8th Pay Commission: Full Details On Salary Hike, Pension & Key Changes Ahead
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.
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.
Case Details : THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Versus RUSHANT MALHOTRA AND ORS.| Diary No. 6259-2026
Case Title: The Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Rushant Malhotra & Ors.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
