Big Setback for Sikkim HC Staff: Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing on Job Termination Case

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Supreme Court of India declined urgent hearing request in plea by Sikkim High Court employees challenging their termination from service. Plea raises issue whether full court can invalidate appointments made under a previous Chief Justice.

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a request for an urgent hearing in a petition filed by employees of the Sikkim High Court who challenged their termination from service.

The matter was mentioned before a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, where the petitioners’ counsel raised concerns about whether a full court of the High Court can annul appointments made during the tenure of a previous Chief Justice.

Counsel also sought an early hearing, but the Bench rejected the request, stating that the case would be taken up in due course.

The Bench observed,

“This court is treated as a forum for convenience,”

The dispute arose from a decision of the Sikkim High Court’s full court that terminated the services of the petitioners, who had been appointed while former acting Chief Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai was in office.

The termination action, the petitioners said, followed another full court decision after the current Chief Justice, A Muhamed Mustaque, assumed charge in January 2026.

When the counsel appeared before the Supreme Court today, they submitted,

“This is not an ordinary matter. All the employees were taken in service by earlier Chief Justice.”

The counsel said,

“Now a full court decision has been shown to terminate them,”

Highlighting what they described as wider institutional implications, the counsel contended,

“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,”

Despite these submissions, the Supreme Court did not accede to the plea for urgent listing.

CJI Kant remarked,

“Anyways no urgent listing. We will hear all this when we list it.”

The case will now be considered at a later stage in accordance with the Court’s listing process.






Similar Posts