Pending appeals under repealed service rules fall within the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

The petitioner, a Process Server in the district judiciary, was compulsorily retired pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated on 10 December 2025.

Under Rule 13 of the Assam District and Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 (“1987 Rules”), he filed an appeal before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department, on 30 January 2026.

As the appeal was not disposed of, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 27 May 2026 seeking appropriate directions.

On 8 June 2026, the Court directed the appellate authority to take effective steps to decide the appeal.

During the proceedings, the Assam District Court Employees Service Rules, 2026 (“2026 Rules”) came into force through a notification dated 3 September 2026.

Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 13 of the 1987 Rules, which was pending when the 2026 Rules came into force, was saved and deemed to be an appeal under Rule 30 of the 2026 Rules?

Whether, after the commencement of the 2026 Rules, the Secretary to the Government of Assam retained jurisdiction to decide the pending appeal, or whether jurisdiction shifted to the Gauhati High Court?

Rule 13 of the 1987 Rules conferred a right of appeal against an order of the District and Sessions Judge before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department.

Rule 30 of the 2026 Rules provides that an employee aggrieved by an order of the disciplinary authority may appeal to the High Court within thirty days, subject to condonation for sufficient cause.

Rule 32(1) repealed the 1987 Rules, while Rule 32(2) provided that any appointment, order, action, or anything whatsoever done under the repealed rules would be deemed to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the 2026 Rules, with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applying to the effect of the repeal.

Accordingly, a pending appeal filed under the previous appellate provision is to be treated as an appeal under the corresponding appellate provision in the new rules.

The Court held that the petitioner’s filing of the appeal before the Secretary under Rule 13 constituted “anything whatsoever done” under the repealed 1987 Rules.

By virtue of Rule 32(2), that appeal was therefore deemed to have been filed under Rule 30 of the 2026 Rules.

Since Rule 30 expressly designates the High Court as the appellate authority, the Secretary’s earlier appellate jurisdiction ceased in respect of the pending appeal, and the appeal became one required to be decided by the High Court.

The Court consequently treated the change in the appellate forum as a statutory consequence of the repeal-and-saving provision rather than as a mere direction to expedite the Secretary’s decision.

The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the Secretary to forthwith transfer the complete appellate records to the Gauhati High Court; the Registry was directed to communicate the judgment to the Secretary; and the High Court was requested to decide the appeal expeditiously, particularly in view of the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner.

No order as to costs was made.