Supreme Court Directs UP to Pay Full Dues to Employee Wrongly Deprived of Salary: State of U.P. vs Baleshwar Singh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 9th November 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1031
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can a state government deny an employee their salary and retiral benefits due to administrative issues arising from state reorganization? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the State of Uttar Pradesh and one of its employees, Baleshwar Singh. The court’s decision highlights the responsibility of the state to ensure that its employees are not penalized for issues beyond their control. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal.

Case Background

This case arises from the bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh into the State of Uttaranchal (later renamed Uttarakhand) and the State of Uttar Pradesh, effective from November 9, 2000, under the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. Baleshwar Singh, an employee of the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh, was caught in the middle of the administrative changes. Despite a policy of the Central Government for mutual transfers, Baleshwar Singh faced significant delays and denial of his salary and retiral benefits.

On September 25, 2007, Baleshwar Singh, then an Assistant Conservator of Forest, opted for a posting in the newly formed State of Uttarakhand. Mahendra Pratap Singh, another Assistant Conservator of Forest, consented to a posting in the reconstituted State of Uttar Pradesh. A mutual transfer order was issued on August 6, 2008, allocating Baleshwar Singh to Uttarakhand and Mahendra Pratap Singh to Uttar Pradesh. Baleshwar Singh joined duty in Uttarakhand on September 30, 2008.

However, a decision by the High Court of Uttarakhand on July 26, 2010, nullified the mutual transfer policy. Consequently, on April 5, 2011, the State of Uttarakhand directed Baleshwar Singh to resume duty in Uttar Pradesh, and Mahendra Pratap Singh was directed to return to Uttarakhand. Mahendra Pratap Singh challenged this order in the Allahabad High Court, which stayed the order on April 15, 2011. This forced Baleshwar Singh to also file a writ petition.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court disposed of the petitions filed by Baleshwar Singh and Mahendra Pratap Singh. The High Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Baleshwar Singh’s salary from April 9, 2011, until Mahendra Pratap Singh’s promotion, and then as against the cadre post. The High Court also ordered the payment of current salary from May 2016 and arrears within three months. Additionally, Baleshwar Singh was to regain his seniority as per the allocation order of October 30/31, 2006, without affecting Mahendra Pratap Singh’s promotion. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed this order to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of administrative orders and the principles of natural justice. There are no specific legal provisions or sections of statutes discussed in the judgment.

Arguments

The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the High Court’s order created a peculiar situation where Mahendra Pratap Singh was retained in service while the state was also burdened with paying Baleshwar Singh’s salary and benefits. The State relied on subsequent events to justify their position. However, the Supreme Court noted that the State of Uttar Pradesh had defaulted by not complying with the Allahabad High Court’s order of May 28, 2012, which directed them to permit Baleshwar Singh to resume duty.

The State of Uttar Pradesh tried to argue that the word ‘may’ in the order of May 28, 2012, meant that it was not mandatory for them to allow Baleshwar Singh to resume duty. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the order, when read in its entirety, made it clear that the State of Uttar Pradesh was required to permit Baleshwar Singh to continue his duty. The Court also noted that the State of Uttar Pradesh had not challenged the order nor complied with it. Instead, they had attempted to circumvent the order by requesting the State of Uttarakhand to cancel Baleshwar Singh’s relieving order.

Baleshwar Singh’s counsel argued that he had suffered due to no fault of his own and that the State of Uttar Pradesh had failed to comply with the High Court’s orders. They also pointed out that Baleshwar Singh had to undergo a liver transplant and that the retiral benefits released to him were based on the incorrect assumption that he had superannuated on April 18, 2011, instead of June 30, 2016.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh was justified in not complying with the Allahabad High Court’s order of May 28, 2012.
• Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh was liable to pay Baleshwar Singh’s salary and retiral benefits.
• Whether the retiral benefits were correctly calculated.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

No specific cases or legal provisions were cited by the court in this judgment.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision, directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Baleshwar Singh his arrears of salary, consequential benefits, and retiral dues. The court also directed the State to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amounts due from June 30, 2016, and at the rate of 9% per annum if the payments were not made within three months. The court further directed the State to calculate the retiral dues based on Baleshwar Singh’s actual superannuation date of June 30, 2016, and to pay the balance amount with 6% interest from August 22, 2016, and 9% if not paid within three months. The court also directed the State to consider Baleshwar Singh’s medical reimbursement claims.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court primarily relied on the order of the Allahabad High Court dated May 28, 2012. The Court held that the State of Uttar Pradesh was bound by this order and should have allowed Baleshwar Singh to resume his duties. The court’s reasoning was that the State of Uttar Pradesh had neither challenged nor complied with the said order and therefore the State was at fault.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the injustice faced by Baleshwar Singh, who was deprived of his salary and retiral benefits due to the administrative failures of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court emphasized that the State had not complied with the High Court’s order and had attempted to circumvent it. The Court also noted that Baleshwar Singh had suffered significant personal hardship, including a liver transplant, and that the State had failed to provide him with his rightful dues.

The Court’s decision was driven by the principle that an employee should not suffer due to the administrative lapses of the state. The Court also emphasized that the State of Uttar Pradesh had acted improperly by not complying with the High Court’s order and by attempting to circumvent it. The Court also took into account the fact that Baleshwar Singh had been made to suffer due to no fault of his own.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that an employee should not suffer due to the administrative lapses of the state. The Court also emphasized that the State of Uttar Pradesh had acted improperly by not complying with the High Court’s order and by attempting to circumvent it. The Court also took into account the fact that Baleshwar Singh had been made to suffer due to no fault of his own.

The court rejected the State of Uttar Pradesh’s argument that the word “may” in the order of May 28, 2012, meant that it was not mandatory for them to allow Baleshwar Singh to resume duty. The court held that the order, when read in its entirety, made it clear that the State of Uttar Pradesh was required to permit Baleshwar Singh to continue his duty. The court also noted that the State of Uttar Pradesh had not challenged the order nor complied with it.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the judgment. The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that an employee should not suffer due to the administrative lapses of the state. The court also emphasized that the State of Uttar Pradesh had acted improperly by not complying with the High Court’s order and by attempting to circumvent it.

The court quoted from the judgment, “the default is on the part of the State of Uttar Pradesh” and “the action of the State of Uttar Pradesh of addressing the letter dated 31st October, 2012 in the teeth of the order dated 28th May, 2012, amounts to making an effort to circumvent the order dated 28th May, 2012.” and “the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh has suffered for no fault on his part.”

Key Takeaways

• State governments must ensure that employees are not penalized for administrative issues.
• Orders of the High Court must be complied with, and attempts to circumvent them will not be tolerated.
• Employees are entitled to their rightful dues, including salary and retiral benefits, and should not suffer due to administrative lapses.
• The State is responsible for ensuring that employees are not made to suffer due to no fault of their own.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to:

• Release the salary and all other consequential benefits to Baleshwar Singh within three months from November 9, 2023, with simple interest at 6% per annum from June 30, 2016, and 9% if not paid within three months.
• Calculate and pay the balance retiral dues based on Baleshwar Singh’s superannuation date of June 30, 2016, within three months from November 9, 2023, with simple interest at 6% per annum from August 22, 2016, and 9% if not paid within three months.
• Release medical reimbursement to Baleshwar Singh, if applicable, within three months from November 9, 2023.
• Pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to Baleshwar Singh within three months from November 9, 2023.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a state government cannot deny an employee their salary and retiral benefits due to administrative issues arising from state reorganization. The judgment also emphasizes that the orders of the High Court must be complied with and that attempts to circumvent them will not be tolerated. The Supreme Court upheld the principle that an employee should not suffer due to the administrative lapses of the state.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of U.P. vs Baleshwar Singh is a significant victory for employees who find themselves caught in administrative issues. The court’s clear directive to the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Baleshwar Singh his dues and benefits underscores the principle that employees should not suffer for the administrative failures of the state. The judgment also serves as a reminder to state governments to comply with court orders and to ensure that their employees are treated fairly.

Category

• Service Law
  • State Government Employees
  • Salary and Benefits
  • Retiral Benefits
  • State of Uttar Pradesh
  • State of Uttarakhand
• Administrative Law
  • Compliance with Court Orders
  • State Reorganization
  • Administrative Lapses

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the State of U.P. vs Baleshwar Singh case?

A: The main issue was whether the State of Uttar Pradesh could deny an employee, Baleshwar Singh, his salary and retiral benefits due to administrative issues arising from the bifurcation of the state.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court ruled that the State of Uttar Pradesh was liable to pay Baleshwar Singh his salary, consequential benefits, and retiral dues. The court also directed the State to pay interest on the amounts due and to consider his medical reimbursement claims.

Q: Why did the State of Uttar Pradesh not pay Baleshwar Singh his dues?

A: The State of Uttar Pradesh failed to comply with the Allahabad High Court’s order of May 28, 2012, which directed them to permit Baleshwar Singh to resume duty. The State also attempted to circumvent this order.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for other state government employees?

A: This judgment underscores the principle that state governments must ensure that employees are not penalized for administrative issues. It also emphasizes the importance of complying with court orders and ensuring that employees receive their rightful dues.

Q: What should an employee do if they are facing a similar situation?

A: An employee facing a similar situation should seek legal advice and ensure that their case is brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities. They should also ensure that all relevant documents and evidence are preserved.