Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Recovery of Salary of Employees of Educational Institution — Non-Payment of Salary from March 2012 Violates Fundamental Rights Under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 58
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, seven employees of Women's College of Education, Faizpur (respondent no.6), filed a writ petition seeking recovery of their salary from March 2012 onwards. They were appointed between 1991 and 2006 and had been continuously serving without interruption, receiving salary until March 2012. Despite assurances and approaches to various authorities, no salary was paid thereafter. The petitioners contended that the non-payment violated their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution. The respondent institution argued financial constraints due to non-receipt of grants from the government. The court observed that the petitioners had rendered services and were entitled to salary, and that non-payment amounted to forced labour. The court directed respondent no.6 to pay the salary from March 2012 within three months, failing which respondent no.5 (the managing body) would pay and recover the amount from respondent no.6. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Recovery of Salary - Fundamental Right - Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India - Petitioners appointed between 1991 and 2006 and continued in service without interruption, but salary stopped from March 2012 - Court held that non-payment of salary amounts to forced labour and violates Article 21 - Directed respondent no.6 to pay salary from March 2012 within three months, failing which respondent no.5 to pay and recover from respondent no.6 (Paras 2-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to recovery of salary from March 2012 onwards from the respondent educational institution and whether the court can direct payment despite the institution's financial constraints.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Petition allowed. Respondent no.6 is directed to pay salary to the petitioners from March 2012 within three months. If respondent no.6 fails to pay, respondent no.5 shall pay the salary and recover the same from respondent no.6. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Right to salary is a fundamental right under Article 21
  • Forced labour includes non-payment of wages
  • Employer cannot escape liability by blaming government grants
  • Writ petition maintainable for recovery of salary
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (12) 20

Writ Petition No.12119 of 2019

2020-12-09

Sunil P. Deshmukh, R.G. Avachat

Mr. Ajay Talhar for petitioners, Mr. S.S. Dande AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3, Mr. S.V. Natu for respondent no.6

Ashish Yadav Bharambe and others

State of Maharashtra and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition for recovery of salary

Remedy Sought

Direction to respondents to pay salary from March 2012 onwards

Filing Reason

Non-payment of salary despite continuous service

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to recovery of salary from March 2012 onwards Whether the court can direct payment despite financial constraints of the institution

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners: They have been continuously serving since their appointments between 1991 and 2006, but salary stopped from March 2012; non-payment violates Articles 21 and 23. Respondent no.6: Financial constraints due to non-receipt of grants from the government.

Ratio Decidendi

Non-payment of salary to employees who have rendered services amounts to forced labour and violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The employer cannot escape liability by pleading financial constraints or non-receipt of grants.

Judgment Excerpts

Petitioners were appointed on their respective posts from 1991 to 2006 and have been continued in service without interruption. Non-payment of salary amounts to forced labour and violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Respondent no.6 is directed to pay salary to the petitioners from March 2012 within three months.

Procedural History

Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.12119 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking recovery of salary from March 2012. The petition was heard on 9 December 2020 and allowed.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 21, 23
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Section 5(3-D) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Levy on Packing Material at Same Rate as Goods Contained Therein Is Valid and Does Not Violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Quashing Petition Under Section 482 CrPC for DV Act Proceedings, Holding Inherent Powers Not Available for Civil Proceedings. The Court ruled that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ...