Orissa HC Dismisses State's Appeal Against Order to Pay Salary Arrears Since November 2022, Cites Article 21 Right to Livelihood
The Orissa High Court rejected the State of Odisha's challenge to a direction to pay an employee's withheld salary, holding that denial of wages violates the right to livelihood under Article 21.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, comprising Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, dismissed in limine the State of Odisha's intra-court appeal against a Single Judge's direction to pay salary arrears to an employee from November 2022. The bench found the appeal afflicted by a delay of 231 days for which no plausible explanation was offered, and held independently that withholding wages from a working employee violates the right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court extended the compliance deadline to eight weeks from the date of its order.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Sunil Kumar Bhainsa, an employee connected with Mandhata Baba Higher Secondary School, Maneswar, had filed W.P.(C) No.5733 of 2024 before a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court. The Single Judge, by order dated 24 April 2024, directed the State to pay him salary accrued since November 2022 within four weeks, and further directed that salary be paid on a regular basis going forward.
The State of Odisha, represented through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education Department, along with the Sub-Collector, Sambalpur, challenged that order by filing W.A. No.76 of 2025 under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948. Mrs. Suman Pattanayak, Additional Government Advocate, appeared for the appellants.
Delay of 231 Days: The First Ground for Refusal
The Division Bench identified a delay of 231 days in filing the appeal. The State had moved I.A. No.331 of 2025 seeking condonation of that delay. The bench found no plausible explanation for the delay and dismissed the application outright. That alone was sufficient to decline interference, but the bench went further and addressed the merits as well.
Article 21, Article 23, and the Right to Wages
The bench grounded its refusal to interfere in a chain of constitutional reasoning. It recalled that the Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746, held that Article 21 is not confined to mere physical existence but extends to the right to live with basic human dignity. No procedure that strips a person of that dignity can be regarded as reasonable, fair, or just.
Applying that principle to the facts, the bench observed that the employee's salary had admittedly not been credited since November 2022. That, in the court's view, fell foul of the right to livelihood as enunciated in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
The Single Judge had also invoked Article 23, which prohibits begar and other forms of forced labour. The Division Bench acknowledged that the Single Judge's reasoning on Article 23 rested on what it called an “inarticulate premise,” but held that arguable infirmity in reasoning does not by itself warrant appellate interference when the conclusion is constitutionally sound.
The bench drew on the Supreme Court's exposition in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473, which held that Article 23 strikes at forced labour in whatever form it manifests, and that where remuneration falls below the minimum wage, the labour provided falls within the scope of “forced labour.” It also cited Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1983 SC 328, for the proposition that whenever the State takes labour or service from any person, it must pay at least the minimum wage, failing which Article 23 is violated.
The bench further referred to the Karnataka High Court's decision in Sri Srinivasa v. The Deputy Commissioner, 2020:KHC:12415, and the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, AIR 1998 SC 3164, to the effect that even a serving convict working within jail premises is constitutionally entitled to equitable and fair wages.
State as Model Employer: Wages Cannot Be Withheld During Disciplinary Proceedings
A significant strand of the bench's reasoning concerned the State's obligation as a model employer. Relying on Bhupendranath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234, the bench held that an employee who has worked in State employment for a particular period, even during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding, cannot justifiably be denied wages that have accrued because of his work. The bench described this as “the underlying philosophy of Article 23 of our Constitution.”
The bench was careful to clarify that nothing in its order would cast a shadow on the pending case in which the employee is said to have challenged the disciplinary proceedings against him. The two matters were kept separate.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed W.A. No.76 of 2025 in limine. The condonation application I.A. No.331 of 2025 was also dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge was directed to be complied with within an outer limit of eight weeks from 22 June 2026. The Registry was directed to send a copy of the order by Speed Post to the respondent-employee immediately, with the web copy to be acted upon by all concerned.
The bench placed on record its appreciation for the research and assistance rendered by its official Law Clerk-cum-Research Assistant, Mr. Mohammed Nihad Sharief.