- (1.) WE have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, respondent in person. No one appears on behalf of the appellants/State. The advocates in the High Court are abstaining from work since 9th July, 2014.
(2.) THE counsels, representing the State of Rajasthan, may be the members of the Bar Association, they are also abstaining from work. They are appointed by the State Government to pursue the cases and watch the interest of the State Government in the High Court. There is no justification for the counsels, representing the State Government, to abstain from work.
(3.) IN the present case, the matter relates to an employee in the office of the Advocate General. We find it distressing that both the State of Rajasthan and the office of the Advocate General, despite listing of the case, of which they have full knowledge, have not appeared to defend their principles. We may observe here that despite the abstention of the counsels, the litigants are appearing and are requesting the Court to hear the matters. In absence of the counsels appearing for the State Government, State Institutionalities and the Public Sector Undertaking and Corporations, the Court finds it difficult to proceed with the matters. There are, however, many cases, which require urgent attention, and should not wait despite the non -appearance of the counsels.;