Court Affirms Right to Salary for Stenographers Under Article 226

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Yogesh Kumar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, addressing the rights of employees regarding salary claims under Article 226 of the Constitution. The ruling clarifies the scope of judicial intervention in employment disputes, particularly when employees have rendered service but face termination due to technicalities.

Case Background

The appellant, Yogesh Kumar, applied for the position of Stenographer in response to an advertisement from the District Court, Saharanpur. He, along with six others, was appointed to the position and assumed charge on April 16, 2002. However, it was later discovered that the number of posts advertised was only three, leading to the issuance of show cause notices to the excess appointees, including Kumar. On February 28, 2005, the District Judge terminated Kumar's services, prompting him to challenge the decision through a writ petition.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition on May 17, 2012, and an intra-court appeal was also dismissed. Kumar subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which dismissed his special leave petition but allowed him to seek salary claims through appropriate civil action. Following this, Kumar and others made representations for their unpaid salaries, which were rejected, leading to another writ petition that was dismissed on May 23, 2018. The appeal against this dismissal was also rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court, prompting the current appeal.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The High Court upheld the termination of Kumar's services, emphasizing that the appropriate recourse for salary claims was through civil action rather than writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge defined 'civil action' and maintained that the writ court was not a civil court, thus non-suiting Kumar and his co-petitioners. The High Court's stance was that since the petitioners had lost in the first round of litigation, they were bound by the earlier ruling that directed them to seek relief through civil proceedings.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal, noted that the facts regarding Kumar's service were undisputed. The Court highlighted that the appellant and others had indeed worked for eight years, and the earlier dismissal of the special leave petition did not preclude them from seeking salary claims through writ jurisdiction. The Court criticized the High Court's hyper-technical approach, asserting that it was not appropriate in cases involving employees who had rendered service.

The Court referred to the precedent set in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., which established that even in cases of disputed facts, the High Court could entertain petitions under Article 226 if the disputes could be resolved through affidavit evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the State and High Courts should act as model litigants, particularly in matters concerning the payment of salaries to employees who have served.

Statutory Interpretation

The ruling underscores the interpretation of Article 226 of the Constitution, which grants the High Court the power to issue directions or orders to any person or authority. The Court clarified that the jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be limited by technical definitions of civil actions, especially when the fundamental rights of employees are at stake. The Court's interpretation aligns with the broader principles of justice and equity, ensuring that employees are not deprived of their rightful dues due to procedural technicalities.

Constitutional or Policy Context

The judgment resonates with the constitutional mandate to ensure justice and fair treatment for all individuals, particularly in employment matters. The Court's insistence on a non-technical approach reflects a progressive interpretation of the law, aiming to protect the rights of employees who have been wronged by administrative actions. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of workers and ensuring that they receive their due compensation for services rendered.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is significant for legal practitioners and employees alike, as it clarifies the scope of Article 226 in employment disputes. It establishes that employees can seek salary claims through writ petitions, even in the face of disputed facts, provided that the disputes can be resolved based on affidavit evidence. The ruling also emphasizes the need for a compassionate and just approach by the courts, particularly in matters involving the payment of salaries to employees who have served diligently.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and directing the respondents to pay the salary of the appellant and similarly situated individuals for the period they worked. The Court mandated that the payment be made within three months, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the salaries were due. Additionally, the Court awarded costs of Rs. 1 lakh to the appellant, acknowledging the prolonged litigation and the distress caused by the administrative actions.

Case Details

• Case Title: Yogesh Kumar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
• Citation: 2025 INSC 379
• Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih
• Date of Judgment: 2025-03-18