Summary
Stenographers appointed in excess of the advertised posts had worked for eight years without pay; after the termination was upheld, this Court had reserved liberty to seek salary in an appropriate civil action. The High Court refused a writ petition for salary on the ground that only a civil court could grant it. Held: a writ court under Article 226 should not be hyper-technical where the facts are undisputed; the State and High Court must act as model litigants. Appeal allowed; salary with 6% interest and costs of Rs 1 lakh directed.
Issues
- Whether a liberty to seek relief in an 'appropriate civil action' confined the appellant to a suit before a civil court and barred a writ petition under Article 226 for unpaid salary.
- Whether the High Court was justified in declining relief under Article 226 when it was undisputed that the appellant and others had actually worked for eight years without being paid.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court held that a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction is not expected to be hyper-technical about the form of the remedy; relying on ABL International, it reiterated that even disputed questions of fact can be decided under Article 226 on affidavit evidence where no elaborate evidence is needed, and that the undisputed claim for salary for eight years of service could be granted in writ proceedings. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
Held
- The liberty reserved by this Court to seek payment of salary in an 'appropriate civil action' did not confine the appellant to a suit before a civil court. Although the Single Judge correctly considered the dictionary meaning of 'civil action', a court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 is not expected to be hyper-technical, and the writ petition should not have been dismissed on that ground. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Where it is undisputed that employees of the District Judiciary actually put in eight years of service, the High Court can grant relief under Article 226; following ABL International, even disputed questions of fact can be decided in writ proceedings where they can be resolved on affidavit evidence without elaborate trial. The State and the High Courts are expected to be model litigants and not take a hyper-technical view of a claim for salary for work actually done. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench were unsustainable in law. The respondents must pay the appellant and similarly circumstanced persons salary for the period actually worked in the District Court within three months, with interest at 6% per annum from the dates the salaries fell due, and costs of Rs 1 lakh to the appellant for having been made to run from court to court since 2012. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed. Orders of the Division Bench dated 16/05/2019 and of the Single Judge dated 23/05/2018 set aside. Respondents directed to pay salary for the period actually worked, with 6% per annum interest from the dates it fell due, within three months, and costs of Rs 1 lakh to the appellant within three months.