Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Friday heard a plea filed by Rajasthan District Judge Dinesh Gupta (posted as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal) who is due to retire in four days, raising grievances over the lack of basic facilities at his court.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana took up the matter.

Appearing for Gupta, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted that Gupta is the senior-most District Judge in the State but has been functioning without even basic facilities, including a stenographer and an office.

“He is writing judgments still at 2 o'clock at night,” Singh submitted, highlighting the difficulties faced by the judicial officer in discharging his duties.

The CJI observed that a new Chief Justice had recently taken charge in the State and advised Gupta to submit a representation before the Chief Justice regarding his grievances.

Singh requested the Court to record the observation in its order.

He subsequently sought permission to withdraw the plea, while requesting liberty to approach the appropriate authority with all the grievances and seek their expeditious consideration.

“Permit me to withdraw and give me liberty to approach with all my grievances and for expeditious consideration,” Singh submitted.

The CJI agreed to the request. The plea was thus permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his grievances before the appropriate authority.

The matter was a contempt petition filed by Dinesh Kumar Gupta against Chanchal Mishra, the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court, alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court's January 2026 direction that Gupta will be entitled to pay and allowances of a District Judge while he is officiating as a as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal.

He had approached the Supreme Court alleging that he was being targeted and repeatedly transferred in violation of the applicable transfer policy. The petitioner contended that his posting at the Labour Court Jaipur was not commensurate with his rank as a Principal District Judge.

In the order passed on January 29, the Supreme Court had ordered :

(i) The substantive rank of the petitioner shall continue to be that of Principal District Judge.

(ii) The petitioner shall be entitled to all the allowances admissible to a Principal District Judge, even during his posting as the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal.

(iii) The petitioner shall not report to any junior and/or a District Judge. His administrative control shall directly be with the Administrative/Portfolio Judge of the Sessions Division within which the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, where the petitioner has been posted, is located.

Case : DINESH KUMAR GUPTA v. CHANCHAL MISHRA AND ORS. | CONMT.PET.(C) No. 735/2026 in W.P.(C) No. 1264/2025

Tags: