"New Chief Justice Has Come, Approach High Court," Supreme Court To Rajasthan District Judge Alleging Lack Of Facilities
District Judge Dinesh Kumar Gupta, due to retire in four days, told the Supreme Court today that he is functioning without a stenographer or office and has to write judgments late at night.
Supreme Court urged the District Judge to withdraw his plea alleging lack of basic facilities, and approach the High Court.
The Supreme Court on Friday permitted a Rajasthan District Judge to withdraw his plea alleging lack of basic facilities at his present posting, while granting him liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a contempt petition filed by Dinesh Kumar Gupta, who is presently serving as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal in Rajasthan. Gupta is due to retire in four days.
Appearing for Gupta, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted that his client is the senior-most District Judge in Rajasthan but was functioning without even basic facilities, including a stenographer and an office.
Singh told the Bench that the lack of support staff was making it difficult for the judicial officer to discharge his functions and that he was still writing judgments at around 2 am.
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant pointed out that a new Chief Justice had recently taken charge of the Rajasthan High Court and suggested that Gupta approach the Chief Justice with his grievances.
Singh then sought permission to withdraw the contempt petition while seeking liberty to approach the appropriate authority with all his grievances and request their expeditious consideration. The Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal and granted the liberty sought.
Earlier Proceedings Before Supreme Court
The present proceedings arise out of a dispute concerning Gupta's service status and posting. Gupta had earlier approached the Supreme Court alleging that he had been repeatedly transferred in violation of the applicable transfer policy and that his posting as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal was not commensurate with his status as a Principal District Judge.
On January 29, 2026, the Supreme Court had protected his substantive rank and financial entitlements. The Court directed that Gupta's substantive rank would continue to be that of a Principal District Judge and that he would remain entitled to all allowances admissible to a Principal District Judge even while serving as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal.
The Court had further directed that Gupta should not report to any junior officer or District Judge. His administrative control was to remain directly with the Administrative/Portfolio Judge of the Sessions Division in which the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal was situated.
The present contempt petition was filed against Chanchal Mishra, Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court, alleging non-compliance with those directions. While the contempt proceedings were pending, Gupta's counsel brought to the Court's attention the conditions under which he was functioning at the Labour Court.
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. Chanchal Mishra & Ors.
Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana
Hearing Date: September 25, 2026