New Delhi: In an unusual observation, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant Wednesday came down heavily on senior advocates of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for “creating havoc” there. The CJI was hearing the plea of a judicial officer who is fighting for his pension and retirement benefits and, after four recusals, wanted the case moved to the top court.
CJI Surya Kant, who, following a long career in law was elevated to the P&H HC as a judge, did not name these senior advocates, but said he was closely watching the situation evolving there.
“I know there are four or five senior advocates who are involved in this kind of thing. I am closely watching the thing. The three or four so called senior advocates are creating havoc. Better you argue yourself,” the CJI told the petitioner.
The CJI, who is holding a partial vacation court along with Justice V. Mohana, made the critical observation on the lawyers of his parent HC during the hearing of a writ petition by a former judicial officer who sought transfer of his case from P&H HC to Delhi HC.
The officer, Amrish Kumar Jain, is fighting to receive his pensionary benefits before the P&H HC since 2022. In these last four years his matter was heard by four different benches, including one headed by the HC Chief Justice.
In fact, the bench headed by the Chief Justice, had heard the matter at length before reserving it for orders. However, while Jain waited for a final judgement, the bench recused from the case, without furnishing any cogent reason. This was the second recusal. Earlier, the first bench too held detailed hearings and had listed the case for final disposal before releasing it.
The fate of Jain’s case remained unchanged even when it was referred to a third and then a fourth bench.
Incidentally, Jain is litigating against the HC administration. He instituted his proceedings when the HC’s administrative section refused to release his pensionary benefits accrued during his 30 years of service.
Now, because of the given situation in which four different benches have recused from hearing his case, Jain apprehends that a fair and speedy trial of his case may not be possible if it continues to be under the P&H HC jurisdiction.
He feels that the HC judges have recused themselves from hearing the case because it is against the court’s administrative wing.
Hence, Jain moved the SC, urging it to transfer the case to Delhi.
When CJI Suryakant-led bench heard Jain’s case Wednesday, the former judicial officer appeared personally to address the court.
At the outset, the CJI asked Jain for the name of the judges and then went on to criticise the senior advocates of the HC.
On Jain offering to argue the case personally, the CJI’s bench asked the P&H HC Chief Justice to constitute a bench to hear the officer’s case and advised that the judges who are marked the matter do not recuse “irrespective of the situation that may be created by anyone”.
To Jain’s request to fix a timeframe for the conclusion of his case, SC ordered that his matter would be heard on a day-to-day basis, and finished in the week commencing 13 July. As the top court decided to monitor the case, it asked the HC to send a compliance report once the hearing was over and judgment is reserved.
Jain’s counsel, Abhay Pratap Singh, shared the financial crisis the former judge is facing due to the current litigation.
Since the main case was nowhere close to getting decided, Jain had in 2024 moved a miscellaneous application in the HC, requesting for an interim order. He had asked the court to release some funds from his pensionary benefits so that he could pay for his son’s tuition.
However, that application was never considered and each time it was adjourned with a date.
Singh told ThePrint: “His (Jain’s) son was pursuing law from a prominent national law university and was in his fifth year when the application to release funds was made. Due to nonpayment of tuition fee, the son faces challenges to complete his course.”
The SC order has given a ray of hope to Jain, and Singh said he is hopeful the matter would be decided within a reasonable period.
“The extraordinary circumstances of the present case disclose not merely delay, but an institutional impossibility in securing adjudication before the same high court, particularly when the challenge itself concerns actions taken on the administrative side of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh,” read Jain’s transfer petition before SC.
Incidentally, this is the second time that the former judicial officer is litigating against the P&H HC’s administrative wing.
In the first round, Jain had emerged successful. The former civil judge had joined the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) on 3 November 2005, and after completing the maximum period of probation on 25 November 2008, attained deemed confirmation, as per the applicable service rules.
However, within a year, the HC took an administrative decision to remove him. Noting that he was still on probation, it did not hold any enquiry against him, as per the applicable service rules.
Aggrieved, Jain moved the P&H HC, which nine years later ruled in his favour and quashed the termination order, directing his reinstatement with consequential benefits such as continuity of service, seniority, increments and promotional entitlements.
SC affirmed this decision in January 2019. This judgment was delivered on an appeal filed by the HC’s administrative wing, questioning the decision.
Consequently, Jain was reinstated as a civil judge in March 2019. Three years later, Jain was again terminated. Again the HC’s administrative department said he was being removed during his probation period. Hence, no enquiry was conducted before Jain was served with the termination notice.
According to Jain’s plea, the HC could not have removed him without an enquiry, mandated under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970, since he was not on probation in 2022, but a confirmed judicial officer. His reinstatement by both HC and SC was with retrospective effect and, therefore, the HC could not have treated him as an officer on probation.
Moreover, Jain, stated his petition, had been in regular substantive posts from July 1992 to April 2022. This means he held a post, first with the government and then judiciary, without a break for 30 years, making him eligible for pensionary and retiral benefits.
However, post his removal, the HC did not release his retiral benefits nor the General Provident Fund, which, according to Jain, was stopped in the “most illegal manner”.
“The repeated recusals by multiple Benches of the Hon’ble High Court have given rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that fair, expeditious and effective adjudication may no longer be feasible if the proceedings continue before the Hon’ble High Court,” reasoned Jain’s petition in the SC, invoking the top court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.
Jain approached SC to “secure the ends of justice, and safeguard” his constitutional right to fair and speedy adjudication under Article 21 of the Constitution.
As per the timeline of his case, notice on his petition in HC was issued on 26 May 2022. It was heard extensively on multiple occasions by different benches, and finally on 24 July, 2024, a bench led by Justice Lisa Gill, who is now the Chief Justice of Telangana High Court, fixed it for final disposal.
But on 2 September 2024, Justice Gill recused herself from hearing the matter and cited office notes pertaining to earlier reasons as the reason.
Subsequently, the matter was listed before a bench headed by the Chief Justice of the HC. It was argued in detail and on 24 February 2025, the bench reserved it for verdict.
On 23 July, the matter was unexpectedly relisted on the ground that judgments could not be pronounced and that considerable time had elapsed since the hearing. Later, on 28 August, the Chief Justice’s bench also recused itself from hearing the matter, after which the case was placed before a bench led by Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra.
Though the new bench heard the case several times, on 25 March 2026, it recused from hearing the matter further owing to vigilance-related aspects highlighted during hearing.
The case was marked to the fourth bench led by Justice Deepak Sibal, which, incidentally, on the first date of hearing on 14 March 2026, announced its recusal.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)