JUDGMENT 1. - A letter dated 17th October, 1987 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court by the Rajasthan Nyayik Karmachari Sangh was treated as a writ petition and the same was admitted on 19th October, 1987. Notice was issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan and the Law Secretary, Government of Rajasthan. Later on, an application was filed on 23rd May, 1988 seeking to implead the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur as respondent No. 2 and, on 5th July, 1988, the Rajasthan High Court was also impleaded as respondent No. 2. The petitioner Association i.e. Rajasthan Nyayik Karmachari Sangh has filed this writ petition raising grievance about inadequate ministerial staff in the various courts subordinate to the High Court and has prayed that adequate staff be provided in the offices of the subordinate courts in the light of the norms given in the report of M.C. Jain Committee. The following items in the record with documents form part of the pleadings in the present case : 1. The letter dated 17th October, 1987, addressed to the Chief Justice under the signatures of Shri Durga Prasad Sharma and Shri Kunj Behari Sharma as President and General Secretary respectively of the Rajasthan Nyayik Karmachari Sangh which was treated as a writ petition. 2. Reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan dated 24/25th April, 1988. 3. Rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition filed by the State Government with documents filed on 26th September, 1988. 4. Registrar's letter to the Addl. Registrar dated 25th February, 1988 with documents mentioned therein. 5. Revised statement filed by the petitioner Association on 16th March, 1988. 6. Application dated 22nd February, 1991 filed by the Addl. Advocate General with the copy of the report of Bansal Committee. 7. Reply to the rejoinder on behalf of the respondents with documents, dated 30th Aug., 1991. 2. On the agitation of the staff of the subordinate courts, the Government of Rajasthan vide its order No. F.7 (12)O&M/Gr.V/73 dated 26th March, 1973 and 10th June, 1973 appointed a Committee of the following officers to study the workload and to suggest norms for the purpose of fixation of strength of staff in various subordinate courts:- 1. Shri Milap Chand Jain, RHJS, Jt. Legal Remembrancer- Convenor 2. Shri R.N. Kaul, RHJS, Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur-Member 3. Shri Milap Chand Jain, RHJS, Jt. Legal Remembrancer- Convenor 2. Shri R.N. Kaul, RHJS, Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur-Member 3. Shri Hari Prasad Agarwal, Dy. Scretary to Government & M Deptt. Jaipur - Member. 4. Dy. Secretary to Government, Finance Department - Member 5. Shri P.C. Parihar, Member Secretary, Dy. Secretary, Law & Judicial Department 3. This Committee submitted its report to the Government in the year 1976 on 30th October, 1976. The Government vide its letter No. F.19 (43)Judl/72 dated 24th November, 1976, desired the comments of the Court which were sent to the Government vide High Court's letter No. 269 dated 10th January, 1977. The High Court had also appointed a Committee vide its order No. 2/80 dated 6th March, 1980 and the said Committee after discussing the various problems of the subordinate courts endorsed the recommendations of the Jain Committee and while doing so resolved that excepting the recommendation to abolish the post of Sale Amin, it should be implemented forthwith. All these facts are mentioned in the letter dated 5th July, 1980 sent by the Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court to the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan (DOP) (A & R-I) Jaipur wherein it was also mentioned that the representatives of the All Rajasthan District Court Staff Association had met the Chief Justice and had placed various problems before the Chief Justice and that one of the demands was for implementation of the recommendations of the Jain Committee and for revival of the post of Sale Amin. It was also mentioned in this letter dated 5th July, 1980 by the Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court that the Court also endorses the recommendations of the Jain Committee and also the demand of the Association for the revival and creation of the post of Sale Amin, one in each of the Districts and Sessions Courts and that an early action is required in the matter. The Registrar, Rajasthan High Court also sent a letter dated 3/4th October, 1980 to the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Judicial Department, Jaipur mentioning therein that for want of adequate number of staff the processes are delayed which creates discontentment amongst the litigant public; further on account of heavy work the staff makes agitation which disturbs cordial relationship with the officers; recently, a deputation of some members of the staff of subordinate courts union met the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and explained their difficulties and requested to increase the strength of ministerial staff on the basis of the report of Jain Committee. The Court had also recommended the demand of subordinate courts Union for creation of one post of Sales Amin in each of the 25 District and Sessions Courts, and further that this matter had also come up before the conference of District & Sessions Judges held on 8/9th July, 1980 and it was emphatically stressed by the District & Sessions Judges that the strength of the ministerial staff should be increased as recommended by the Court also on the basis of the Jain Committee report. It was, thus, requested through this letter that the ban on creation of new posts so far as the subordinate courts are concerned, may be relaxed and sanction for creation of additional posts of ministerial staff, as suggested in the report of the Jain Committee may be conveyed. This letter dated 3/4th October, 1980 has been filed as Annexure/19 with the rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition filed by the State Government. It appears that the petitioner association went on persuing this matter and the correspondence went on between the petitioner association and the High Court and the Registrar of the High Court and the Judicial Department of the Government, but no effective steps were taken and the petitioner association ultimately sought to agitate this matter before this Court through the letter petition dated 17th October, 1987, which was treated as a writ petition. 4. On 9th February, 1988 when the matter came up before the Division Bench of this court, the Court passed a detailed order as under: "9.2.1988: Hon'ble the Actg. Chief Justice Mr. G.M. Lodha Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.C. Jain Mr. B.L. Sharma for the petitioners Mr. M.I. Khan, Addl. 4. On 9th February, 1988 when the matter came up before the Division Bench of this court, the Court passed a detailed order as under: "9.2.1988: Hon'ble the Actg. Chief Justice Mr. G.M. Lodha Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.C. Jain Mr. B.L. Sharma for the petitioners Mr. M.I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General In pursuance of the earlier orders, the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court has placed before us the file No. G/I/A4(i)(a) 14/72 on the subject Study Report of the Jain Committee (Demand Chart of the employees of Civil Courts). It contains a carbon copy of the report, which was forwarded to the High Court by the Government by letter No. 19(43) Nyaya/72 dated 24.11.1976. It is from page No. 885 to page No. 803. The main principal part of the report is in 25 pages signed by Shri P.C. Parihar, Deputy Secretary (Judi), Secretary, Shri R.N. Kaul, Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Member, Shri H.P. Agarwal, Deputy Secretary (O&M) Member, Shri Anil Vaish, Deputy Secretary, Finance (Expenditure), Member and Shri M.C. Jain, Joint Legal Remembrancer, Convenor. This Committee was constituted vide order dated March 26,1973 and June 10, 1973. From 1973 to 1976 after major deliberations the Committee studied the various problems including the workload of the ministerial staff and suggested suitable norms for the fixation of its strength. As per the work load, which the Committee found just and proper, it suggested the abolition, increase of strength of staff as under: A. ABOLITTON OF POSTS S.No. Name of post Grade No. of posts 1. Sales Amin(JDC) 130-300 17 B., CREATION OF POSTS S.No. Name of Post Grade Total amount of Yearly emoluments No.of yearly emoluments posts. 1. Additional Munsarim 200-450 468x12=5616 5 2. Addl. Jr. Accountant 170-390 438 x 12 = 5226 6 3. Addl.Head Copyist 130-300 361.80x12=4342 4 4. Nazir (UDC) 130-300 361.80x 12=4342 19 5. Asstt. Nazir 110-230 334.60x12=4015 15 6. Malkhana Clerk 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 20 7. Addl.Estt.Clerk 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 16 8. Addl.Typist 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 11 9. Addl.Asstt.Record Keeper 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 20 10. Inspection Clerk 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 17 11. Librarian 110-230 334.60x12=4015 17 12. Addl.Relieving Clerk 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 132 13. Copyist 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 64 14. Hindi Copyist-Cum-Typist 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 30 15. Case Clerk 110-230 334.60x12=4015 200 16. Addl.Asstt.Record Keeper 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 20 10. Inspection Clerk 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 17 11. Librarian 110-230 334.60x12=4015 17 12. Addl.Relieving Clerk 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 132 13. Copyist 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 64 14. Hindi Copyist-Cum-Typist 110-230 334.60 x 12 = 4015 30 15. Case Clerk 110-230 334.60x12=4015 200 16. Stenographer 160-360 428 x 12 = 5316 239 It appears that the High Court approved this probably in a Full Court meeting in 1977 and desired that the Government should implement it.As usual the queries from the Government were made from time to time and the replies were sent, but though we are now in 1988, by and large the report remains where it was in 1976 in the absence of proper, effective, comprehensive implementation.The most serious concern to be observed by us is the non-availability of this original report in the Government Secretariat and similar situation which was existing in High Court for last two years or so. It was only when an order was passed by this Court on the last hearing that with great difficualty the Registrar could trace out the report which was untraceable quite for some time.It is a matter of great concern and exhibits chaotic state of affairs to find that the report which was prepared by experts after deliberations for four years from 1973 to 1976 is yet to be traced and found out. We would not comment so far as implementation is concerned, because Mr. Khan, Additional Advocate General prays for time to axcertain whether any part of it has been implemented and if so, to what extent. Mr. B.L. Sharma's contention is that there has been no increase of the strength of the staff to cope with the norms of work load suggested by this Committee. Khan, Additional Advocate General prays for time to axcertain whether any part of it has been implemented and if so, to what extent. Mr. B.L. Sharma's contention is that there has been no increase of the strength of the staff to cope with the norms of work load suggested by this Committee. The strength may have been increased on account of increase of the Courts by creation of new Courts.It would be, therefore, now a matter of fresh assessment and survey for us on judicial side to find out what should be the strength according to the work load suggested by M.C. Jain Committee in the context of the Courts which are now in existence, because obviously from 1976 to 1988 there must have been substantial increase in the number of Courts.Be that as it may, before we proceed to examine the matter, we would like both the parties to place before us in writing preferably substantiated by some available documentary evidence, if possible, the number of staff in relation to the number of Courts and in relation to the work load suggested by Jain Committee. In substance data should be produced before us to show now in the changed context what more strength of staff is needed with their classifications and designations.The Registry of the High Court would also prepare a statement in this respect, as primarily the Registry or the Government only are having the documentary record and official record and reliable information on the basis of which they can assist the Court effectively.Since the report has been made available with great difficulty, we would like that the Additional Registrar of this Court should keep it in his personal custody and allow Mr. Khan and Mr. B.L. Sharma to have photostat copies of the report at their cost and also inspect the file as many times as they like. Put up on 17.2.1988. Sd/. P.C. Jain J. Sd/- G.M. Lodha Actg. CJ." 5. Thereafter a reply to the writ petition was filed on 24-25th April, 1988. In Para 3 thereof, it was stated as under: "3. That M.C. Jain Committee's report was not accepted ay the State. However, the execution of the report of the Jain Committee was under proceeds and preference was also given within the financial limit by the State Government. Thereafter a reply to the writ petition was filed on 24-25th April, 1988. In Para 3 thereof, it was stated as under: "3. That M.C. Jain Committee's report was not accepted ay the State. However, the execution of the report of the Jain Committee was under proceeds and preference was also given within the financial limit by the State Government. The State Government is facing acute financial problems due to recurring droughts every year since the report of Jain Committee was submitted." It was also stated in this reply that now special courts had been established and that the workload of the courts had been considerably reduced because of Lok Adalats and that the Jain Committee report contemplated only 239-Stenographers but so far more than 290 posts of stenographers had been created. In para 12 of the reply it is stated as under: "12. That in view of the above facts, the State Government has earnestly tried to cherish the report of the Jain Committee inspite of the fact that the State is facing drought recurringly since then." 6. A statement as Annexure R/1 to this reply was also filed showing the number of courts and number of staff created after the Jain Committee report. A rejoinder to the aforesaid reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner association with a large number of documents seeking to traverse the case set up on behalf of the State of Rajasthan in the aforesaid reply and, with regard to Annexure R/1 which had been filed with reply, year wise position from 1977 to 1987 was explained in detail and, it was submitted that the State Government be directed to create 1957 additional posts of various categories of staff forthwith as per the norms laid down by the Jain Committee. 7. The Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court vide his letter dated 26th February, 1988 sent to the Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur sent the copies of the following items in terms of this Court's order dated 9th February, 1988: 1. List of courts situated at the headquarters of the District Judge and at all outlying places. 2. Copies of Government/High Court orders (readily available) creating/alloting certain posts of ministerial and class IV servants in subordinate courts. 3. List of courts situated at the headquarters of the District Judge and at all outlying places. 2. Copies of Government/High Court orders (readily available) creating/alloting certain posts of ministerial and class IV servants in subordinate courts. 3. Consolidated statement showing the total short fall of posts of ministerial staff in all judgeships as recommended by Jain Committee along with post-wise statement. 4. Consolidated statement showing the total short fall of posts of Class IV Servants. 8. The petitioner Association thereafter filed a revised statement on 16th March, 1988 showing the total number of the required posts to be 1957 in accordance with the norms given by H.C. Jain Committee coupled with the detailed statements with reference to the name and number of posts and the courts at different places. When the matter came up before me on 25th January, 1991, learned the then Addl. Advocate General (Mr. M.I. Khan) sought time to make submissions with reference to the latest position and, on Ist February, 1991, it was submitted by him that a committee had been constituted by the Rajasthan High Court itself with regard to the demands of the employees of the subordinate Courts, and he also wanted to place on record the report of this committee and thereafter on 27th Feb., 1991, a copy of the report described as Bansal Committee Report was filed along with a statement of new sanctioned posts and the shortfall of the posts with the details of the strength of the staff proposed by the Bansal Committee and the Jain Committee. This statement, according to the Addl. Advocate General reflected the latest position and the same is annexed as Schedule-A to this order which may be treated as a part of this judgment. 9. Thereafter a reply to the rejoinder on behalf of the respondent State was filed on 30th August, 1991. It has been stated in para 8 of this reply to the rejoinder that the proposals of Jain Committee Report were implemented in part and is being implemented finally. It was also stated that no cause of grievance has occurred to the petitioner association. It was also stated in part 8 that the matter has been discussed in B.F.C. meeting wherein creation of posts and courts and allocation of budget for various subordinate courts and High Court were discussed and collective decisions were taken. 10. It was also stated that no cause of grievance has occurred to the petitioner association. It was also stated in part 8 that the matter has been discussed in B.F.C. meeting wherein creation of posts and courts and allocation of budget for various subordinate courts and High Court were discussed and collective decisions were taken. 10. It was argued by Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma on behalf of the petitioner Association that the litigation had increased and consequently the workload had also increased and, yet there is no corresponding increase in the strength of the staff and, thus, the object of efficient administration of Justice and giving a prompt service to the litigating public are suffering and, the existing inadequate staff has to suffer the burden beyond its capacity. He made a reference to the book titled as U;kf;d dzkfUr ds cnyrs vk;ke Shri Guman Mal Lodha and submitted that there was 19 times increase in the number of cases, whereas the increase in the number of courts is only 3.6 times. Referring to the figures from Table 39, relating to the subordinate courts in Rajasthan, of this book, he submitted that at the beginning of the year 1980, there were 4,48,400 cases pending in the courts and at the beginning of the year 1984, pendency was 6,25,880 and after adding the new cases filed in the year 1984 and substracting the cases which were decided during this year, there remained 6,92,635 cases pending. He submitted that while it is the primary duty of the State to impart Justice the seekers of Justice were suffering in want of adequate staff in the courts. It was submitted that the Jain Committee was constituted to study the workload and to suggest the norms for the purpose of fixation of the strength of the staff in various subordinate courts way back in the year 1973 and, although, the Committee had given its report way back in the year 1976, the norms suggested by the Jain Committee were not being adhered to despite the fact that the same had also been endorsed by the High Court and the need for the increase in the number of staff was stressed by the Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court. 11. The then Addl. 11. The then Addl. Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that the new Courts had been established and the number of staff had also been increased, but on account of financial stringency it could be so increased only within the limits of the provisions in the budget and the State Government had been continuously facing crisis on account of successive droughts and famine conditions prevailing in the State. He submitted that in this regard no direction could be issued by the Court and that the policy decisions of the Government are in the prohibited zone so far as the Courts are concerned. He made reference to the report of the M.C. Jain Committee which was appointed by the Government as well as to the report of the Barisal Committee and submitted that the Government was alive to the fact situation obtaining with regard to the inadequacy of the staff and the workload, but it can provide the staff only within its means and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in such matters which primarily fall within the domain of the consideration of the State. He referred to certain observations made by the Supreme Court in para 5 of decision in Sarup Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 360, at page 864 and submitted that Court has no concern with the motives of the legislature and whatever justification some people may feel in their criticisms of the political wisdom of a particular legislative or executive action, the Supreme Court cannot be called upon to embark on an enquiry into public policy or investigate into questions of political wisdom or even to pronounce upon motives of the legislature in enacting a law which it is otherwise competent to make. He also made a reference to B.C. & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106 , and submitted with regard to the observations made in paras 29 and 100 of this judgment that the court cannot adjudicate on Government Policy measures unless the policy is alleged to be mala fide, and that in the matters relating to the policies, the court cannot be propelled into the unchartered ocean of Governmental policy. 12. Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, on the other hand, cited the case of R.L. Gupta & anr. 12. Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, on the other hand, cited the case of R.L. Gupta & anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 1988 1 SVLR (L) 103 , decided on 16th March, 1988 and submitted that frustration amongst the people lead to a greater national drain and further that peace and tranquility that will result from quick disposal of cases is much more valuable that the economic goods produced by factories. Delay in disposal of cases affects the gross national product adversely and further that it is imperative that there should be an increase of strength of the Judicial Officers at least by 30% immediately and submitted that the Supreme Court itselt has observed in this judgment that this warning will not go unheaded. Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma has also cited the case of Subhash Sharma v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 631 , and submitted that in this case the Supreme Court has held that fixation of Judges' strength is a justiciable matter and the existing need and the constant review of the position year to year is necessary. On the strength of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Supreme Court, Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma submitted that to provide for adequate staff in the Courts and direction to that effect is only logical extension of what has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Subhash Sharma v. Union of India (supra). 13. From the pleadings and the contents of the various documents including the correspondence which has transpired between the petitioner Association and the Registry of the Rajasthan High Court and the Departments of the Government as also the statements which have been filed, one thing is very clear that the strength of the staff in the various subordinate courts is highly disproportionate to the work - load and the strain of the work on the employees with reference to the requirement of the handling the number of cases is transparently visible and, this position has also been realised by the concerned departments of the Government keeping in view the report of the M.C. Jain Committee and the norms which were suggested by the said Committee. However, as many times the proposals for increasing the strength of the staff were made, they could not evoke the requisite response on the ground of the financial problems which the State was said to be facing on account of droughts and famine conditions or otherwise. It may have been so; but after all it is a question of considering the matter by giving priority and preference at some stage. The M.C. Jain Committee which was appointed in the year 1973 gave its report in the year 1976. On account of financial problems, the need for increase in the staff attached to the courts could be deferred for an year or two, but it could not be a continuous process for more than one decade. After all, at some stage such a problem which is directly related to the question of administration of Justice and the inconvenience which the litigating public was facing and the fact that the existing staff was over burdened with the work, could have received the proper attention of the Government at some stage. Even if the Government would have to enlist the need for the increase in the staff as its last priority, in no case it should have been made to be an item of no priority and no preference whatsoever. The figures which have been given on behalf of the respondent State with regard to the increase and the establishment of the new and special courts can only be said to be a poor apology and token and nominal increase as compared to the increase in the litigation and the graph of the workload, which has been continuously rising. The figures which have been given on behalf of the respondent State with regard to the increase and the establishment of the new and special courts can only be said to be a poor apology and token and nominal increase as compared to the increase in the litigation and the graph of the workload, which has been continuously rising. Besides the report of the M.C. Jain Committee for implementatic of which the present writ petition has been filed, when the matter came up before the court on 1st February, 1991, the then Additional Advocate General himself submitted that a Committee had been constituted by the Rajasthan High Court with regard to the demands of the employees of the subordinate courts and he himself sought time to place on record the report of the said Committee and a copy of the same, known as Barisal Committee Report, was filed by the then Additional Advocate General in this case on 22nd February, 1991 and, as per the statement enclosed, about which reference has already been made hereinabove, the Bansal Committee had proposed 1983 posts as against 1504 posts proposed by the Jain Committee and even after taking into consideration the number of posts created after the report of the M.C. Jain Committee, the difference of posts comes out to be 1298. These facts and figures are hard facts which have to be faced. 14. It has not been the case of the State that the norms which had been suggested by the M.C. Jain Committee were improper or were unreasonable. No doubt, in para 3 of the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents, a bald statement was made that M.C. Jain Committee's report was not accepted by the State, but immediately thereafter in this very para, it has been pleaded that the execution of the report of the Jain Committee was under process and preference was also given within the financial limits by the State Government and the State Government is facing acute financial problems due to recurring droughts every year since the report of the Jain Committee was submitted. However, no order of the State Government was produced before me in support of the averment that the M.C. Jain Committee's report was not accepted by the State. However, no order of the State Government was produced before me in support of the averment that the M.C. Jain Committee's report was not accepted by the State. On the contrary, the pleadings and the correspondence as a whole show that the norms set up by the M.C. Jain Committee were not given effect to on the ground of financial crisis, although as per para 12 of the reply the M.C. Jain Committee report was cherished by the Government, and as per para 3 of the reply to the rejoinder dated 30th August, 1991 the proposals of the Jain Committee report were implemented in part and were being implemented finally. Therefore, there is no material on the record to show that the M.C. Jain Committee report was not accepted by the State Government. On the contrary, there is material to believe that, but for the ground of financial crisis and limitation of means as has been pleaded, the report of the M.C. Jain Committee could be given effect to and acted upon. In any case, as I have already observed above, the implementation of the M.C. Jain Committee Report and the norms suggested by it, with regard to the increase in the staff could not be deferred indefinitely by pleading the ground of financial crisis. At least, now, for this year, this particular ground is also not available. There is neither famine nor drought and while one can appreciate, if a view is taken by the appropriate functionaries of the concerned department of the Government that the said report and the norms for the increase in the staff suggested therein may be carried out in a phased programme according to the availability of the means and the finances and that such report could not be implemented as a one time action; no prudent mind can ever understand and appreciate that a report containing such valuable suggestions and norms should have been put off every year and from year to year continuously for a period of more than 15 years. 15. Sarup Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) cited by the then Addl. Advocate General was a case with regard to the determination of constitutionality of a statute i.e. Section 148-B of Punjab Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 in which the amendment was made in the year 1959. 15. Sarup Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) cited by the then Addl. Advocate General was a case with regard to the determination of constitutionality of a statute i.e. Section 148-B of Punjab Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 in which the amendment was made in the year 1959. While examining the validity of such amending statute, it was observed in para 5 of the judgment that the Court is not concerned with the motives of the legislature and whatever justification some people may feel in their criticism of the political wisdom of a particular legislative or executive action, this Court cannot be called upon to embark on an enquiry into public policy or investigate into questions of political wisdom, or even to pronounce upon motives of the legislature in enacting a law which it is otherwise competent to make. Yet another case cited by the then Addl. Advocate General i.e. B.C. & Co. v. Union of India (supra) was a case with regard to the challenge to the import policy for news print for the year April, 1972 to March 1973 and the news print policy was impeached as an infringement of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and, it was in this context that in paras 29 and 100 of this judgment it was observed that this Court cannot adjudicate on Government policy measures unless the policy is alleged to be mala fide, and that this court cannot be propelled into the unchartered ocean of Governmental policy. I do not find that any of the observations made in any of the two decisions of the Supreme Court as cited by the then Addl. Advocate General has any bearing on any of the questions involved in this case. On the contrary, I find that in R.L. Gupta & any. v. Union of India (supra),the Apex Court while considering the question with regard to the increase in the strength of the judicial Officers in the courts observed as under: "If the total strength is increased at all levels, this farce of placing the judicial Officers on probation after nearly ten years will also end. We must also observe that the Government should not consider finance as a constraint because by not appointing sufficient number of Judges the Government is suffering more financially. We must also observe that the Government should not consider finance as a constraint because by not appointing sufficient number of Judges the Government is suffering more financially. The Government itself being a big litigant is subjected to several orders of stay, prohibitory orders, injunctions etc. leading to delay in completion of several projects and works, the indirect effects of frustration amongst the people lead to a greater financial drain. 16. Thus, the view of the Supreme Court is that the financial constraint should not be the decisive factor with reference to the requirement of the increase in the strength. It seems that the whole difficulty with regard to the increase in the strength of the Judicial Officers or the staff in the court, rather the development of institution of law and judiciary as such is that the administration of Justice has been classified as a non-plan item in the budget and the result is that the Judicial Departments are most neglected and uncared for and are allocated minimum amount in the budget and even after the lapse of a long period of 45 years after Independence, the institution of law and Justice has not developed either in the matter of equipment of libraries, in the matter of availability of latest techniques of preparing copies of judgments and documents to be made available to the litigating public, computerisation of case laws on various questions and as compared to the development of other departments the Judicial Departments have virtually remained ignored and the needs for the Judicial Department in the matter of requisite number of judicial Officers and the basic needs of the Judicial Officers working in the urban as well as in the rural areas and for the efficient functioning of the courts as also in the matter of requisite strength of the staff as compared to the workload have throughout been the first casuality on the ground of financial constraint. Apart from insufficient staff, the courts are being run without proper building accommodation, there are no arrangements for residential accommodation for the officers of the court, no furniture, no library, not even stationery. Apart from insufficient staff, the courts are being run without proper building accommodation, there are no arrangements for residential accommodation for the officers of the court, no furniture, no library, not even stationery. It may be burdensome and unpleasant to some minds and it may be biting and bitter to some more minds but I cannot help observing that the judiciary should not be made to appear to be helpless and handicaped for reasons which are not at all attributable to the courts and its Presiding Officers as such. I am bemoaned to say that even the strong observations made by Justice E.S. Venkataramiah in the aforesaid decision of R.L. Gupta v. Union of India , as under, could not evoke proper response "We also suggest that the expenditure on judicial administration should not be subjected to the constraints of non-plan expenditure. The judicial department is not an unproductive department. Peace and tranquility that will result from quick disposal of cases is much more valuable than the economic goods produced by factories. Delay in disposal of cases affects the gross national produce adversely. In fact peace and tranquility will help in greater production of economic goods. Quick disposal of cases will also save millions of man-hours which are now being wasted near the courts in India. There must be a change in attitude on the part of the Government and the administrators at the secretariats. It is imperative that every State should increase the strength of judicial Officers at least by thirty percent immediately. Otherwise there would be a catastrophe in about a year or two. It is hoped that this warning will not go unheeded." 17. When a litigant comes to the court as a seeker of Justice, he comes with the hope and expectation that his position will be vindicated. The People of India approach the court and seek protection of the court with a mounting faith, their all hopes are belied and the people feel frustrated if they fail to get speedy Justice. When any person is subjected to in Justice and he comes to the court and he is able to enforce his right within a reasonable time, it is a victory of Justice over in Justice and it gives a great satisfaction to him. When any person is subjected to in Justice and he comes to the court and he is able to enforce his right within a reasonable time, it is a victory of Justice over in Justice and it gives a great satisfaction to him. The cure of an invaded right is equally important as that of the cure of disease as otherwise it results into a mental sickness and losing a healthy mind which can otherwise be more creative and useful. The right to live with dignity and self-respect cannot be undermined as compared to the right of biological existence. Therefore, the State which itself is known to be a virtuous litigant should be alive to the situation that the administration of Justice is not treated as no priority or a last priority. It is little heartening to note and mention that the letter dated 16th July, 1991 sent to the Planning Commission by the former Chief Justice of India Shri Rangnath Misra, wherein the need was stressed to treat the administration of Justice as a planned subject during the 8th Plan, has received the attention of the Planning Commission and the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Shri Pranab Mukherjee has sent a letter dated 22nd June, 1992 to the Chief Justice of India Shri M.H. Kania mentioning therein that after due consideration of the proposal, it has been decided in consultation with the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs that the funds for courts and residential buildings for the higher judiciary and District Courts would be made available through a Centrally Sponsored Scheme to be shared between the State and Centre on a 50 : 50 basis. The contents of this letter dated 22nd June, 1992 (copy of which has been sent to me by the Registry) are reproduced as under:- "D.O. No.M-12011 /1 /91-PC(Lt.F.) DCH/906 Deputy Chairman 'Planning Commission' New Delhi- 110001 India June 22,1992 Dear Mr. Justice Kania, Please refer to Shri Ranganath Misra, forther (former) Chief Justice of India's letter dated 16.07.1991 regarding treatment of Administration of Justice as a plan subject during the Eight Plan. Justice Kania, Please refer to Shri Ranganath Misra, forther (former) Chief Justice of India's letter dated 16.07.1991 regarding treatment of Administration of Justice as a plan subject during the Eight Plan. After due consideration of the proposal, it has been decided in consultation with the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs that the funds for Courts and Residential buildings for the higher judiciary and District Courts would be made available through a Centrally Sponsored Scheme to be shared between the State and Centre on a 50:50 basis. Funds required by the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court will be met full by the Government of India. The maintenance cost of these buildings will continue to be non-plan expenditure. The scheme will become operational during the Eighth Plan. The Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs have already drawn up a scheme in this regard, which is at present under consideration of the Planning Commission. With regards. Yours sincerely, Sd/ (PRANAB MUKHERJEE) Shri M.H. Kania, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India, NEW DELHI. 18. A journey of 1000 miles starts with the single step and I think the above decision is a happy beginning. The other items relating to courts including the question of increase in the strength of the officers and the staff of the courts as also the libraries and the expenditure to be borne on the other latest techniques to be used and employed in the courts would also receive a like consideration with the changed approach and attitude as hoped by the Supreme Court in the case of R.L. Gupta v. Union of India (supra). I may hopefully expect that the Government of the State of Rajasthan would no lag behind rather would take a lead in responding with greater promptitude to the expectations and observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case of R.L. Gupta v. Union of India (supra). 19. Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma has also cited Subhesh Sharma v. Union of India (supra), in which the Supreme Court was considering the question of fixation of strength of Judges and held that such matters are justiciable and has suggested to determine the strength of Judges in a pragmatic way on the basis of existing need and keep it under constant review. No doubt, this case deals with the question of determination of the strength of High Court Judges, but Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma is right in submitting that the logical extension of the proposition laid down in this case by the Supreme Court is that the question of determination of the strength of the staff attached to the subordinate courts and the question of increase in its strength vis-a-vis the existing need is equally important and would be in conformity with this proposition and, therefore, it cannot be agreed that such matters are not justiciable. 20. In my opinion, as and when the committees including high dignitories with expertise are constituted or the commissions are set up, the reports given by such committees and commissions are entitled to great weight. It is only through the reports of such committees and commissions that the Government is able to peep in and appreciate the real requirement and such reports are expected to receive the attention of the Government with immediacy. It will be unfortunate if such reports are not made use of for the purpose for which they are obtained and the same are placed in cold storage, or even when they are not disagreed, they are not given effect to and not acted upon. In the case at hand,the report was given by M.C. Jain Committee way back in the year 1976, had the action been taken there on with requisite promptitude, with all the rebate and concession which could be taken on account of financial problems, yet the norms suggested by this Committee could be given effect to in a phased programme in the span of last 15 years and had such a course of action been followed, the Government could have saved itself from this litigation by the petitioner association on the one hand and would have also met the long felt need for the increase in the staff in the subordinate courts in proportion to the increase of the workload. I am constrained to observe that it did not receive the desired attention and the norms suggested by the M.C. Jain Committee were not put into action even in a phased programme for all these years, although the same had also been endorsed and stressed by the High Court. 21. I am constrained to observe that it did not receive the desired attention and the norms suggested by the M.C. Jain Committee were not put into action even in a phased programme for all these years, although the same had also been endorsed and stressed by the High Court. 21. The result of the adjudication, as above, is that this writ petition succeeds and, it is directed that the report of the M.C. Jain Committee and the norms indicated therein may be given effect to and acted upon and, while doing so, the statement of the shortfall in the number of posts as worked out by the Bansal committee may also be given due regard. The State of Rajasthan may create additional posts of various categories of ministerial staff in accordance with the norms laid down by the Jain Committee and may work out a scheme for that purpose and start implementing the same as early as possible, but in no case later than three months from the date the certified copy of this order is made available to the State of Rajasthan. 22. There shall be no order as to costs. caly desVh o tSu desVh )kjk izLrkfor dk fooj.k] ,e0 lh0 tSu desVh dh fjiksZV ds i'pkr~ LVki ds :i esa Lohd`r uohu in o deh dk fooj.k uke in caly desVh }kjk izLrkfor in tSu desVh }kjk izLrkkfor in ,e0lh0 tSu desVh ds i'pkr~ o ikyuk esa l`ftr uohu in vUrj LFkkiuk 'kk[kk 28 32 & 34 ykbZczsfj;u 108 26 2 24 fjfyfoax DydZ 208 275 3 272 eqUlfje 8 8 7 1 eky[kkuk DydZ 49 41 & 41 dSf'k;j 35 89 & 89 ukftj 44 & 55 55 fjdkMZdhij 59 48 & 48 dkfiLV 450 263 7 256 bUlisD'ku DydZ 452 27 & 27 dsl DydZ 488 604 354$53 250&53 LVsuks 54 16 269$15 253&15 jhMj & 1 1 & d- ys[kkdkj & 8 15 7 lsy vehu & 27 27 & VkbZfiLV & 29 25 4 fjlhV fMLispj & 8 3 5 ;ksx 1983 1504 768$68 = 836 366&68 = 1298 Petition allowed. *******