# EXCLUDING OF DAYS FOR CALCULATION OF WORKING DAYS

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 9/2008
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 2008-03-13
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 9/2008
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/excluding-of-days-for-calculation-of-working-days-162133
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

117
(iii)
EXCLUDING OF DAYS FOR CALCULATION OF WORKING DAYS
C.L. No.C-26/1994, dated 15th March, 1994
I am directed to say that it has come to the notice of the Court that the Judicial
Officers are claiming the whole day on which the courts are closed for half day due to sad
demise of Advocates or other causes in accordance with the provisions contained in subpara 2 (a) of Schedule „E‟ of the Court‟s G.L. No. l/IVh-14/90, dated 8.11.1990, for the
purpose of calculating the number of working days in their quarterly statement of outturn, which are incorrect. They should be asked to claim only for half day instead of the
whole day on which the courts are closed for half day due to sad demise of Advocate or
other causes as mentioned in sub-para 2 (a) of Schedule „E‟ of the aforesaid court‟s
General Letter, in calculating their working days in their out-turn of quarterly statements,
in future.
It may kindly be circulated to all the Judicial Officers working under you for their
kind information and future guidance, so that they may submit their out-turn of quarterly
statements accordingly.
(iii-a) Office Hours for the Judicial Officers
C.L. No. 9/2008 Admin (G); Allahabad: March 13, 2008
It has been noticed by the Hon‟ble Court that the Judicial Officers are not
following the timings as provided in Rule 8 of the General Rules (Civil) which provides
for hours of work in Civil Courts to extend from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m,, probably under
the wrong notion that these timings are for the staff and not for the Judicial Officers.
Dispelling this misconception the Hon‟ble Court has desired it to be communicated to all
the Judicial Officers that they are supposed to remain present in the Court premises from
10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and attend to their administrative work from 10.00 a.m. to 10.30
a.m. and from 4.0 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. besides dictating judgements and orders etc. In case
any Judicial Officer has insufficient work he may be provided additional work to keep
him busy from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
Therefore, in continuation of the Circular Letters (C.L. No. 2/Admn. (B) dated
27.2.1971; C.L. No. 47/viii-20-Admin. (G)(B) dated 21.7.1983; C.L. No. 36/VIIIb4/Admin. (G) dated 21.6.1989; C.L. No. 4 dated 3rd February 1976), I am directed to say
that the contents of this Circular Letter may kindly be brought to the notice of all the
Judicial Officer working under your administrative control and it be impressed upon them
that they shall sincerely observe the office timings as mentioned above.
(iv)
Providing Stenographers to ACJMs etc.
C.L. No. 86/Ve-47/Admn.(D), dated 6th September, 1990
I am directed to refer to the Court‟s Circular Letter No. 10/Ve-47/Admn. (D)
dated 6th February, 1990 on the above subject and to say that the lists containing the
names of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates, Munsif Magistrates and Judicial
Magistrates which were circulated with the aforesaid circular letters have by now gone
obsolete as several Officers of the said lists have now been promoted and are working
either as Civil Judge or Chief Judicial Magistrates. It has, therefore, been considered
necessary to prepare a fresh list including 85 more Officers in order of seniority as 85
more posts of stenographers have been created by the Government by G.O. No. U.O.
118
120/Sat-Nya.-9/Budget/26/85 Nya. Anubhag-2 (Adhinasth Nyayalaya) Anubhag, dated
4.8.1990 (copy enclosed) so that the facility of stenographers may be provided to them.
I am accordingly to send herewith the revised list containing the names of 442
Munsif Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates, Railway Magistrates and Metropolitan
Magistrates alongwilh a list of 228 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates and Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrates indicating the date of their appointment and to request
you to provide them the facility of stenographers whereever they are posted.
1 am further to say that all the Officers who are being provided the facility of
stenographers are requested to give 20% more work in their out-turn from the date the
facility of stenographers is provided to them.
It is further added that the special pay of Rs.25/-per month as admissible to the
Munsarim Reader will be discontinued immediately from the date Presiding Officer of
their Courtsw ith whom they are attached to, are provided with the facility of
stenographer as provided in G.O.No. U.O. l20/II-Nyay-9/Budget/26/85 Nyay Anubhag
dated 4th August, 1990.
(v)
V.I.P. duty
C.L. No. C -110/1994, dated 21st Novernber, 1994
I am directed to say that the Court has taken a view that no credit be given to any
Judicial Officer in his work quota for the month, on the ground that he was absent from
Court on V.I.P. duty, unless he was specifically so directed by the High Court.
I am, therefore, to request you kindly to bring this fact to the notice of all the
Judicial Officers posted in your Judgeship for strict compliance.
C.L. No. 120/Admn.(G), dated 9th December, 1994
Judicial Officers on VIP duty, credit in work quota
Keeping in view the heavy pendency of work load in the subordinate Courts and
the imperative necessity of ensuring its expeditious disposal, the Hon‟ble Chief Justice
and Judges have been pleased to direct that no credit be given to any Judicial Officer in
his work quota for the month, on the ground that he was unable to attend Court on any
particular day, as he was on VIP duty that day, unless he is specifically so deputed, by the
High Court. These instructions may kindly be brought to the pointed attention of all the
Judicial Officers posted in your Sessions Division.
This Circular Letter is being issued in supersession of Circular Letter No. C-110/
Admn. (G) of November 21,1994.
[15] RESIDENTIAL ACCOMODATIONS:
(i)
Allotment of houses
C.L. No. 57/lVh-3-1(2) dated 5th September, 1949

If it is found that Judicial Officers have been unfairly discriminated in the matter of
allotment of houses by the Collector the fact should immediately be brought to the notice
of Court for necessary action.