Uttar Pradesh Teacher Salary Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Payment During Legal Dispute

The case of Aparbal Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others revolves around a long-serving government school teacher whose salary was stopped due to administrative doubts over his appointment. The Supreme Court had to decide whether a teacher who had been working for over thirty years should continue receiving his salary while his employment status was under legal review.

The ruling clarified that salary payments cannot be withheld arbitrarily, especially when an employee has continuously worked for decades. The judgment also reinforced the importance of maintaining financial stability for employees during pending litigation.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Aparbal Yadav, was employed as a teacher in a government-aided school in Uttar Pradesh since 1987. His salary was paid regularly until January 25, 2012, when an order was issued to stop his salary on the grounds that doubts had arisen about the validity of his appointment.

Aggrieved by the stoppage of his salary, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, seeking relief. The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in his favor, stating that an employee who had worked for three decades should not be deprived of salary based on mere suspicion. The Single Judge passed an interim order on August 31, 2017, directing the state to continue paying the teacher’s salary until the final disposal of his case.

However, the State of Uttar Pradesh appealed before a Division Bench, which modified the Single Judge’s order and directed that the situation as it stood at the time of filing the writ petition should be maintained. Since the appellant had not received his salary when he filed the writ, the Division Bench’s ruling effectively meant that his salary would remain stopped.

The appellant then challenged the Division Bench’s order before the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

1. Whether an employee with three decades of continuous service can be denied salary based on doubts over his appointment.
2. Whether the Division Bench was justified in modifying the Single Judge’s interim order.
3. Whether stopping salary payments without due process violates an employee’s rights.
4. Whether the appellant should continue receiving salary until the final disposal of the writ petition.

Arguments by the Appellant (Aparbal Yadav)

• The appellant contended that he had been serving as a teacher since 1987 and had received a regular salary until 2012.
• He argued that stopping his salary based on doubts regarding his appointment was unfair, especially when he had worked for over three decades.
• He maintained that financial hardship caused by the salary stoppage had severely affected him and his family.
• The appellant urged the Supreme Court to reinstate the Single Judge’s order and allow him to receive his salary until his employment case was fully resolved.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh)

• The state argued that the validity of the appellant’s appointment was under scrutiny, and salary payments should not continue until the issue was resolved.
• The respondents contended that the Division Bench was correct in restoring the status quo at the time of filing the writ petition, which meant no salary should be paid.
• The state maintained that allowing salary payments before verifying the appointment’s legality could create administrative issues.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the legal and factual aspects of the case and made the following key observations:

• The appellant had been working as a teacher for over thirty years and had been receiving salary regularly until 2012.
• The Single Judge had correctly observed that stopping salary payments based on mere doubts was unjustified.
• The Division Bench had failed to consider the hardship faced by the appellant due to the abrupt salary stoppage.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that salary payments are a fundamental financial right of employees, and doubts over employment status should be resolved through proper legal channels rather than immediate salary cessation.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant and set aside the order of the Division Bench. The key directives were:

• The interim order of the Single Judge, allowing the appellant to receive his salary, was reinstated.
• The appellant’s salary payments were to continue until the final disposal of the writ petition.
• The arrears of salary were to be released within one month from the date of the Supreme Court’s order.
• The writ petition was to be decided on its merits without being influenced by the rulings of the Division Bench or the Supreme Court.

Legal Significance of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the principle that salary payments cannot be stopped arbitrarily, particularly for long-serving employees. The judgment establishes that:

1. Salary payments are a fundamental right and cannot be withheld without a valid legal basis.
2. Employment-related doubts must be resolved through due process, not through immediate financial deprivation.
3. Courts should consider financial hardship when deciding on salary-related disputes.
4. Interim relief in salary disputes should be granted where the employee has a long-standing record of service.

Impact on Future Cases

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a precedent for all future cases involving salary disputes in public employment. It ensures that government employees are not deprived of financial stability while their employment status is under legal scrutiny. The ruling will benefit employees facing similar issues and reinforce fair treatment in government service disputes.

Petitioner Name: Aparbal Yadav.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Navin Sinha.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 10-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Aparbal Yadav vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category