Supreme Court Issues Directions For Regularisation Of Court Managers | Directs All High Courts To Frame Rules On Recruitment And Service Conditions Within Three Months
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, through a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, issued directions concerning the status and service conditions of Court Managers across all High Courts and State Governments in India. The Court held that Court Managers currently serving must be regularised, model rules based on the Assam Rules of 2018 must be adopted, and uniform service conditions established. It directed that all High Courts frame or amend their service rules for Court Managers and secure State Government approval within prescribed timelines. The judgment mandates regularisation, service continuity, and future structuring of the Court Manager cadre across jurisdictions.
The matter arose from a batch of interlocutory applications (IAs) and a writ petition filed in an ongoing public interest litigation initiated by the All India Judges Association. The applicants, including the Court Manager Welfare Association and individual Court Managers such as Sachin Kumar Gupta, sought directions to regularise the services of Court Managers and establish uniformity in their conditions of employment nationwide.
The genesis of the issue dates back to the recommendations made by the Thirteenth Finance Commission (2010–2015), which proposed the creation of the role of Court Managers to assist the judiciary with administrative functions. The report emphasized the need to enhance judicial efficiency by reducing the non-judicial workload of judges and enabling focused case adjudication.
Pursuant to these recommendations, the Finance Ministry, by its letter dated 20 September 2010, conveyed guidelines for the creation and funding of Court Manager posts. These guidelines specified qualifications, roles, and responsibilities. Court Managers were expected to assist in case management, statistical reporting, IT systems management, human resources, and infrastructure monitoring. They were to be appointed in every judicial district and High Court bench, funded through a grant of ₹300 crore allocated by the central government.
Despite the intended implementation framework, many Court Managers were engaged on an ad hoc or contractual basis, with varied service conditions, no uniform pay structure, and limited or no access to service benefits, allowances, or career advancement opportunities.
A subsequent letter from the Finance Ministry dated 10 July 2013 reaffirmed the fund allocation but allowed States discretion in fund usage, capped at ₹20,000 per month per Court Manager. As a result, disparities and inconsistencies emerged across States, prompting grievances and legal recourse by affected personnel.
The issue was revisited by the Supreme Court in its 2018 judgment in the same writ proceedings, where it recognized the necessity of Court Managers and directed regularisation of those already in service. Despite this, compliance across States remained fragmented.
Further recommendations were provided by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) in 2022, which examined the employment conditions of Court Managers. The SNJPC highlighted continued irregularities in appointments and service structures and recommended uniform pay scales, regularisation, and structured career progression. It particularly praised the Assam Rules of 2018 as a model framework.
The SNJPC’s report noted the contractual or ad hoc nature of Court Manager appointments in several States, with substantial variations in pay ranging from ₹40,000 per month in Rajasthan to consolidated annual salaries in Gujarat. Some States, such as Assam, had framed rules to regularise Court Managers and provide structured benefits and career advancement.
The persistent irregularities in service conditions led to the filing of additional applications and the present writ petition, seeking enforcement of previous court directions and SNJPC recommendations. An amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, assisted the Court and submitted a tabular chart summarising the status of rules across States and advocated for the adoption of the Assam Rules of 2018 as model legislation.
The Court noted that the role of Court Managers had been proposed to enhance court management efficiency and allow judges to focus on judicial work. Referring to earlier directives, the Bench recorded, “The services of any person already working as a Court Manager in any district should be regularised by the State Government as we are of the considered view that their assistance is needed for a proper administrative set-up in a court.”
The judgment stated, “Even though the SNJPC in its Report had recommended and this Court in the judgment dated 2nd August 2018 in the present proceedings had specifically directed the rules to be framed…various High Courts and various State Governments have not yet complied with the said direction.”
The Court observed, “In spite of specific observations issued by this Court…till date in many Courts, the Court Managers are still working on either contractual basis or on ad hoc basis. Leave aside the issue with regard to regularization, allowances, other benefits and promotional avenues being addressed to, it has also been brought to our notice that in some of the States, a decision had been taken to discontinue the services of Court Managers.”
The Bench recorded, “We find, that as in other services, the promotional avenues are necessary for the employees who would be joining the base post of ‘Court Manager’. The stagnation at one particular level would reduce the efficiency in the functioning of such Court Managers.”
The Court agreed, “We therefore agree with the submissions of the learned amicus curiae that the High Courts and the State Governments should also consider providing for promotional avenues or in the alternative, an ACP Scheme contingent upon the exigencies that exist in the particular High Court and the State.”
Regarding standardisation, the Court stated, “We find that the Assam Rules of 2018 should be considered as the model rules when the other High Courts frame their rules…Needless to state that the High Courts and the State Governments can always make certain changes and modifications…”
The suitability test for existing Court Managers was also addressed. The Court recorded, “We are also in agreement with the submission of the learned amicus curiae that for separating the deadwood, a suitability test can be conducted so that the Court Managers who are functioning properly are continued…”
The Court issued several binding directives. It directed that all High Courts must frame or amend rules for the recruitment and service conditions of Court Managers, using the Assam Rules of 2018 as the model. These rules must be submitted to their respective State Governments for approval within three months.
Upon receiving these rules, the respective State Governments are directed to approve them within an additional three-month period. The Court clarified that the minimum rank/class of Court Managers should be Class-II Gazetted Officer, ensuring entitlement to basic pay, allowances, and other service benefits.
It was clarified that Court Managers in High Courts shall function under the supervision of the Registrar General or Registrars. In District Courts, they shall function under the Registrars or Superintendents, as applicable. Importantly, the Court directed that while determining functions, there should be no overlap with the duties of Registrars.
The services of all existing Court Managers working on a contractual, consolidated, or ad hoc basis must be regularised subject to their passing a suitability test. These regularised Court Managers shall be deemed to have continuity of service from their initial appointment date, entitling them to terminal benefits. However, they are not entitled to arrears due to salary differences between the periods of contractual and regularised service.
The process of regularisation must be completed within three months of the State Government’s approval of the rules. To ensure compliance, the Court placed personal responsibility on the Registrar Generals of the High Courts and the Chief Secretaries of State Governments to adhere to the timelines.
Lastly, in disposing of I.A. No. 135045 of 2023, the Court requested the Punjab and Haryana High Court to decide the pending LPA 1951 of 2019 in accordance with the principles laid down in this judgment.
The Court placed on record its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered during the proceedings. It recorded, “We place on record our deep gratitude for the assistance rendered by Shri Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned amicus curiae ably assisted by Mr. Ankit Yadav and Mr. Aditya Sidhra, learned counsel. We also place on record our appreciation for the Senior Counsel and counsel appearing on behalf of the various High Courts, State Governments and intervenors/petitioners.”
Case Title: All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 713
Case Number: Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
