Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Padma Manwani, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking payment of salary for the period she worked as Assistant Head Mistress from 1986-87 to 1989-90, along with interest and pensionary benefits. She was appointed by the management of Civil Aviation School Association (respondent no.4) but the education department (respondents no.1-3) refused to grant approval on the ground that the post was reserved for a reserved category candidate and the petitioner belonged to the open category. Despite working, she was not paid any salary. The petitioner made several representations but received no response. The management did not appear in court. The state respondents initially opposed the claim but later conceded in an additional affidavit that the petitioner was entitled to salary for the period she worked. The court considered the facts and the concession. The legal issue was whether the petitioner could be denied salary for actual work done due to the reservation policy. The court held that since the petitioner had actually worked as Assistant Head Mistress, she was entitled to salary for that period. The court also directed payment of interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition until realization, as the delay was attributable to the respondents. The court further directed the respondents to consider pensionary benefits in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Salary for Work Done - Right to Remuneration - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner worked as Assistant Head Mistress from 1986-87 to 1989-90 but was not paid salary as the post was reserved and approval was denied - Court held that since the petitioner actually worked, she is entitled to salary for that period, and the respondents cannot deny payment merely because of reservation policy - Held that the employer must pay for work done (Paras 2-5). B) Service Law - Interest on Delayed Payment - Equitable Relief - Interest Act, 1978 - Petitioner sought interest on unpaid salary - Court directed payment of interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition until realization, as the delay in payment was due to the respondents' refusal to grant approval - Held that interest is compensatory and must be granted to avoid unjust enrichment (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary and interest for the period she worked as Assistant Head Mistress despite the post being reserved and approval being denied.
Final Decision
The court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the salary for the period 1986-87 to 1989-90 within eight weeks, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition until realization. The respondents were also directed to consider pensionary benefits in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of.
Law Points
- Right to salary for work done
- Interest on delayed payment
- Reservation policy in appointments
