'Even Jailed Convict Entitled To Fair Wages': Orissa High Court Orders Release Of Lecturer's Salary Withheld Pending Disciplinary Action

Providing relief to the employee, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that pendency of a disciplinary proceeding per se is not a ground for denying salary to a working employee since it violates the salutary principle enshrined in Article 23 of the Constitution. It further observed–

“The Karnataka High Court in Sri Srinivasa v. The Deputy Commissioner, 2020:KHC:12415 reiterating what has been held in State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat; AIR 1998 SC 3164 has observed that even if a serving convict is made to work within the precincts of the Jail, he is constitutionally entitled to receive equitable & fair wages for his labour. Moreover, the State, being a model employer vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234, an employee, who has worked in the State Employment for a particular period even during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding, cannot be justifiably denied wages that have accrued because of his striving.”

While working as a Lecturer at Mandhata Baba Higher Secondary School, Maneswar, Sambalpur, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent for allegedly submitting a fake certificate. As a corollary, his salary was stopped with effect from November, 2022 during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding.

Being aggrieved by such financial deprivation, the respondent initially knocked at the portals of the High Court in 2024 by filing a writ petition. The same was heard and decided by a Single Bench, which on 24.04.2024 ordered the following–

“Considering the submissions made and the instruction provided, it is the view of this Court that unless and until the petitioner is found guilty in the proceeding so initiated, since he is discharging his duties, he is eligible and entitled to get his salary as due and admissible….In view of such position, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs O.P. Nos.4 and 5 to take effective steps for release of the salary of petitioner w.e.f. November, 2022, within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Current salary as due and admissible be paid regularly also.”

Instead of paying the salary to the employee, the government chose to file an intra-court writ appeal impugning the order of the Single Bench before the Division Bench. Interestingly, the government filed the appeal with an inordinate delay of 231 days, which the Division Bench did not find proper to condone. Therefore, on the basis of such non-condonation, the appeal would have become infructuous. However, the Court proceeded on to emphatically remind the government of its duties.

Justice Shripad, while authoring the judgment for the Bench, placed reliance on Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors. (1981) wherein the Apex Court in no controvertible terms held that the right to life under Article 21 is not restricted to mere animal existence but it also includes within its scope and ambit the right to live with basic human dignity and hence, the State cannot deprive these invaluable rights except through the procedure established by law which is just, fair and reasonable.

Similarly citing the rulings made in Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) and Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983), it emphasised that whenever any labour or service is availed by the State from any person, it is duty-bound to pay at the least the minimum wage to such person, failing which it will risk violation of Article 23 and the “doctrine against beggar”.

Accordingly, the Court was of the considered view that even if the respondent is a delinquent employee, who currently faces a disciplinary inquiry, it is not proper on the part of the State to stop paying him salary for his continued service on that mere premise.

The appellant and pro-forma respondent authorities were asked to comply with the direction of the Single Bench, i.e. to pay the outstanding salary amount to the respondent along with regular monthly salary, within a period of eight weeks.

Case Title: State of Odisha & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Bhainsa & Ors.

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 76 of 2025

Date of Judgment: June 22, 2026

Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. Suman Pattanayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: None

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 62