Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the appointment of the respondents, who were directed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court to be appointed in service as per a judgment dated 5th April 1999. Following the court's directive, the State took steps for their appointment, which was completed in September 2000. The respondents claimed salary arrears from 1998, arguing that they should have been appointed earlier. The High Court ruled in their favor, ordering the State to pay salary from 1998. The State contested this, asserting that the respondents were only appointed in 2000 and should not receive salary for the period they were not working. The Supreme Court analyzed the situation, concluding that while the respondents were entitled to notional increments, they could not claim salary for the period prior to their actual appointment. Consequently, the court set aside the High Court's order regarding salary arrears, allowing the appeal partially and denying the claim for salary for the non-working period.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Salary Arrears - Entitlement to Salary for Non-Working Period - Not applicable under the circumstances - The court held that the respondents were not entitled to salary for the period they were not appointed, despite being entitled to notional increments from 1998. The High Court's order to pay salary from 1998 was set aside (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are entitled to salary arrears from 1998 despite not being appointed until 2000.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal partially, setting aside the High Court's order to pay salary from 1998, while affirming the entitlement to notional increments.
Law Points
- Notional increments
- appointment delay
- salary arrears
- employment law
- judicial review
