Statutory appeals should be decided by seniority; courts should not routinely direct their early disposal.

The petitioner, a court employee, was imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect by the second respondent, the Disciplinary Authority.

He filed a statutory appeal before the first respondent, the Registrar General, on 26 March 2026, and soon afterwards instituted this writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction for disposal of that appeal.

The Court was informed that 133 statutory appeals were pending before the appellate authority.

1. Whether the Court should direct the Registrar General to dispose of the petitioner’s statutory appeal shortly after it was filed.

2. Whether a direction prioritising the petitioner’s appeal would be appropriate where numerous other statutory appeals were awaiting disposal.

The Court considered the High Court’s power of judicial review under Article 226 and the principle that a direction to dispose of an appeal should not be issued routinely without regard to other pending appeals and the circumstances faced by the appellate authority.

Appeals should ordinarily be considered in order of seniority and in accordance with prescribed procedures; any priority should be determined by the administration.

The petitioner had approached the Court immediately after filing his statutory appeal.

Given that 133 appeals were pending, directing the authority to dispose of his appeal could prejudice others who had filed earlier and were awaiting decisions.

The Court therefore declined to grant an individual direction, observing that the petitioner’s appeal should be considered according to seniority and the applicable procedures, with any priority left to the administration.

It disposed of the writ petition with observations that the appeal be considered in order of seniority and in accordance with procedure, and that any priority be determined by the administration.

No costs were ordered.