Wages Are Earned Right And Not A Charity, Due Wages Is Fundamental Right Of Worker Under Article 21:Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack

The bench held that the act of the Management in availing the services of the applicant and then not paying him his salary is depriving him of his right to livelihood and is violative of Constitution of India.

Brief Facts:

The applicant retired after reaching the age of superannuation from the position of Addl. Director at CGHS, Bhubaneswar. Initially, the applicant was appointed on a contractual basis for 179 days starting from September 14, 2020. Subsequently, through a letter, the applicant was appointed once again for a period of 89 days. According to the applicant, before the expiration of this 89-day period, Additional Director verbally instructed the applicant to continue working as a contractual doctor. Furthermore, the Additional Director issued various orders pertaining to posting and transfer. Notably, in an order, the applicant was offered an appointment for 89 days, yet there was no mention of his engagement for the period spanning from March 22, 2022, to September 21, 2022. The applicant received salary only for the period from March 22, 2022, to March 31, 2022, comprising 10 days. Despite the applicant's representation, requesting the release of his salary for the period from April 1, 2022, to September 21, 2022, Additional Director, through a letter, informed the applicant that his salary could not be released due to the technical deficiency of a formal appointment letter. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack (“Tribunal”).

Observations by the Tribunal:

The Tribunal held that the applicant was allowed to work from March 22, 2022, to September 21, 2022, without the issuance of any formal appointment letter, and during this period, the applicant duly discharged his duties. This fact was supported by the issuance of posting and transfer orders by the Management. Additionally, in a letter, the Management acknowledged that the applicant was in regular attendance, and the non-release of salary was attributed to the technical deficiency of a formal appointment letter from the establishment.

The Tribunal held that the wages constitute an earned right rather than a charity, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Denying the applicant his rightful wages amounted to depriving him of his right to livelihood, which is unconstitutional. Further, it held that the failure of the Management to issue a formal appointment order or post facto approval for the release of the applicant's salary, despite availing themselves of his services, reflected a clear violation of his rights. The Tribunal emphasized that almost two years had passed without the applicant receiving his due salary, forcing him, as a senior citizen, to seek redress from the Tribunal. Such actions by the Management were held to be exploitative and harassing.

Considering the undisputed fact that the applicant worked for the said period without receiving his salary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Management to pay the applicant's salary for the period from April 1, 2022, to September 21, 2022, along with interest at a rate of 8% per annum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Additionally, acknowledging the inconvenience caused to the applicant, the Tribunal directed the Management to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the applicant within the same period.

Case Title: Dr. Prabhas Ranjan Pradhan vs Union of India and Others.

Case Number: OA No. 524 of 2023

Advocate for the Application: Applicant in person

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. B R Swain, counsel.

Click Here To Read/Download Order