Salary increment for Judiciary employees stalled due to budget constraints: DJA

Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) said in High Court that the outstanding salary increments for judicial employees have not been paid due to a lack of funds in the state budget.

The unpaid salary increases date back to the period between 2017 and 2023. Despite a 2023 ruling by the Employment Tribunal acknowledging that judicial employees were entitled to the salary increments, the tribunal did not mandate payment, citing no funds allocated for the purpose in the state budget.

Judicial employees appealed this decision to the High Court, where DJA acknowledged of the employees' entitlement to the salary increments.

However, DJA maintained that the funds could not be disbursed due to the Public Finance Regulation, which prohibits spending beyond the allocated budget. DJA also stated that it had engaged with the Ministry of Finance in an effort to secure the necessary funds.

High Court bench posed several questions to DJA during the hearing. The judges asked whether courts should assess the availability of funds in the state budget before awarding compensation and whether the lack of budgetary allocations justified withholding the payment.

They also inquired whether the salary increments, as stipulated in the Judicial Employees Regulations, were introduced without sufficient coordination with state agencies.

DJA said that the regulations were developed after consultations with state agencies, but subsequent budgets failed to allocate funds for the increments. While the 2023 budget included the salary increment, it did not account for the outstanding amounts from the previous years.

DJA said that the regulations had not been amended during the period when pay increments were halted but were later updated as efforts to secure the funds continued.

The bench also questioned the DJA on whether withholding the salary increments aligned with the Employment Act and if this affected other entitlements, such as overtime pay. DJA responded that the money had not been withheld under the conditions outlined in the law.

Additionally, the bench asked whether DJA had taken specific steps to resolve the issue after the tribunal's ruling. DJA said that it was unclear whether separate efforts were made following the decision.

High Court announced that there will be further hearings in the case.