Delhi HC Questions Govt Over Denial of Retrospective Salary Hike to Law Researchers
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi government to explain why it refused to give retrospective effect to the salary hike of law researchers (LRs) working with High Court judges.
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta pointed out that the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court had approved the revised remuneration with effect from October 2022. However, the Delhi government decided that the higher salary will be paid only from September 2, 2025.
The Bench questioned the move, noting that in the past too, law researchers had received revised pay retrospectively. “Why are you not giving past dues? On a previous occasion also it was given retrospectively. How can you take a different position now?” the Court asked.
The government’s Principal Secretary, Reetesh Singh, informed the Court that the proposal was put before the Cabinet, but the Finance Department objected, insisting on a prospective hike only.
The Bench observed that the petitioners had rightly relied on Article 229 of the Constitution, which gives the Chief Justice of a High Court authority to decide the service conditions of court staff, including law researchers. The Court then directed the Additional Chief Secretary of the Finance Department to file an affidavit explaining the stand. The matter will be heard next on October 10.
The order came while hearing a petition filed by 13 law researchers, who worked with High Court judges between 2018 and 2025. They demanded implementation of the 2023 decision to raise their salary from ₹65,000 to ₹80,000, effective from October 2022.
Although the Chief Justice had approved the hike in August 2023, the government delayed action for nearly two years. Finally, on September 8, 2025, it approved the revision but restricted it to future payments, effective only from September 2, 2025. This led the researchers to challenge the decision, arguing that the hike must apply retrospectively as earlier precedents show.
Advocates Aditya Chauhan and Abhishek Taneja represented the petitioners.
