“Salary Cannot Be Held Hostage To Bureaucratic Delay”: Bombay HC Raps Authorities Over Pending Shalarth Proposals, Fixes 60-Day Timeline
The Bombay High Court has expressed serious concern over the practice of education authorities keeping proposals relating to teachers' inclusion in the Shalarth system pending for months or even years, resulting in teachers being deprived of their lawful salaries. The Court observed that once the appointment of a teacher on an aided post has been duly approved, inclusion of the teacher's name...
The Bombay High Court has expressed serious concern over the practice of education authorities keeping proposals relating to teachers' inclusion in the Shalarth system pending for months or even years, resulting in teachers being deprived of their lawful salaries. The Court observed that once the appointment of a teacher on an aided post has been duly approved, inclusion of the teacher's name in the Shalarth Pranali for salary disbursement is a consequential administrative step and cannot be indefinitely delayed by the authorities.
A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar was hearing a writ petition filed by Vijay Uttam Chavhan, an Assistant Teacher working in a school, seeking directions to the education authorities to include his name in the Shalarth system and issue a Shalarth ID so that he could receive his salary and other consequential benefits. The school management had submitted a proposal seeking inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Shalarth Pranali. The matter remains pending before the Divisional Deputy Director of Education without any decision.
The High Court observed that the documents on record clearly showed that the petitioner's appointment and transfer to the aided post had already been approved by the competent authority. In such circumstances, inclusion of his name in the Shalarth system was merely a consequential administrative act required for disbursement of salary. The Court held that the Divisional Deputy Director of Education cannot sit in appeal over the approval already granted by the Education Officer while considering a proposal for Shalarth inclusion. It observed:
“The role of Respondent No.3 in such cases is limited to verifying whether the appointment approval order exists, whether the vacancy is duly sanctioned and aided, and whether the proposal submitted by the management and forwarded by the Education Officer is complete in all respects. Upon such verification, the name of the teacher is required to be included in the Shalarth Pranali and a Shalarth ID must be issued without unnecessary delay.”
Expressing concern over repeated instances of similar delays, the Court noted that several teachers are compelled to approach the High Court because proposals relating to appointment approvals, transfers, promotions and Shalarth inclusion remain pending for long periods without decision. The Court emphasized that salary is the lawful remuneration for services rendered by teachers and cannot be withheld due to administrative inaction.
Since the State Government had not framed any comprehensive guidelines prescribing timelines for dealing with such proposals, the Court laid down interim guidelines prescribing specific timelines for scrutiny and disposal of proposals relating to appointment approvals, transfers, promotions and inclusion of teachers in the Shalarth system.
The Court directed that no proposal relating to teacher appointments or Shalarth inclusion should remain pending beyond sixty days from submission of a complete proposal. It also directed the Education Department to develop a digital tracking mechanism for monitoring the status of such proposals.
Lastly, the Court directed the Divisional Deputy Director of Education to decide the petitioner's proposal dated 1 February 2024 and include his name in the Shalarth system within four weeks, provided no deficiencies were found.
Case Title: Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 1520 of 2026]