Supreme Court Restores Salary for Long-Serving Teacher: Aparbal Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 10 April 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 286

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Navin Sinha, J.

Can a High Court Division Bench modify an interim order passed by a Single Judge, especially when it concerns the salary of a long-serving employee? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case involving a teacher whose salary was stopped after 30 years of service. The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of protecting the interests of employees during the pendency of legal proceedings.

This case revolves around an interim order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court regarding the payment of salary to a teacher. The Division Bench of the High Court modified this order, leading the teacher to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, has restored the interim order passed by the Single Judge.

Case Background

The appellant, Aparbal Yadav, had been working as a teacher since 1987. In 2012, his salary was stopped due to certain doubts raised by the authorities. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, a Single Judge of the High Court passed an interim order on 31 August 2017, staying the order that had stopped the appellant’s salary and directing that his salary be continued.

The Division Bench of the High Court, however, modified this interim order, directing that the status quo as of the date of filing of the writ petition be maintained. This meant that the appellant would continue to be without salary. The appellant, therefore, approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order that stopped his salary. A Single Judge of the High Court, considering the appellant’s long service, passed an interim order on 31 August 2017, staying the order stopping his salary. However, the Division Bench of the High Court, without considering the background of the case, modified the interim order, directing that the status quo as on the date of filing of the writ petition be maintained. This effectively meant that the appellant would continue to be without salary. The Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench had not provided sufficient reasons for modifying the interim order passed by the Single Judge.

Legal Framework

There are no specific legal provisions discussed in the judgment. The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of principles related to interim orders and the exercise of judicial discretion by different benches of the High Court.

Arguments

The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by each party. However, the following can be inferred:

• The appellant argued that the interim order passed by the Single Judge was justified given his long service and the fact that his salary was stopped without proper justification.
• The respondents (State of U.P. and others) likely argued that the Division Bench was within its rights to modify the interim order and that the status quo should be maintained until the writ petition was finally decided.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues. However, the core issue was whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in modifying the interim order passed by the Single Judge regarding the salary of the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

No specific authorities (cases or books) were cited by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The appellant’s long service of 30 years as a teacher.
• The fact that the appellant’s salary was stopped based on a mere doubt, which the court deemed unjustified.
• The need to protect the interests of the employee during the pendency of the writ petition.
• The lack of sufficient reasoning by the Division Bench for modifying the interim order of the Single Judge.

The Supreme Court found no justification for the Division Bench to modify the interim order passed by the Single Judge. The Court emphasized that the appellant had been working since 1987 and was drawing salary until the impugned orders were passed in 2012. The court stated, “After all, the appellant has been working since 1987 and was drawing salary till the impugned orders were passed in the year 2012.” The Court also noted that “Stopping salary of a teacher, who is continuously working for last thirty years, only on the basis of doubt is not justified.” The Court concluded that the Division Bench had not considered the background of the case and the reasons that compelled the Single Judge to pass the order. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench to the extent it modified the interim order and allowed the appeal. The court ordered that the interim arrangement made by the Single Judge shall continue until the disposal of the writ petition and that the arrears of salary be released within a month. The court also clarified that the writ petition should be disposed of on its own merits, uninfluenced by the judgment of the Division Bench or of the Supreme Court.

Key Takeaways

• Interim orders passed by a Single Judge of the High Court should not be modified by a Division Bench without sufficient justification.
• The courts should consider the long service of an employee and the potential hardship caused by stopping their salary without proper justification.
• The interests of employees should be protected during the pendency of legal proceedings.
• The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that interim relief should be granted to prevent irreparable harm to parties involved in litigation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The interim arrangement made by the Single Judge by order dated 31.08.2017 shall continue to operate till the disposal of the writ petition.
• The arrears of salary shall be released within a period of one month from the date of the judgment.
• The writ petition may be disposed of on its own merits, uninfluenced by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court or of the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Division Bench of the High Court should not lightly interfere with the interim orders passed by the Single Judge, especially when such orders are aimed at protecting the interests of employees who have rendered long service. This case reinforces the principle that interim orders should be respected and not modified unless there are compelling reasons to do so. It also highlights the importance of ensuring that employees are not left without their salaries during the pendency of legal proceedings.

Conclusion

In the case of Aparbal Yadav vs. The State of U.P. & Ors., the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court that had modified the interim order passed by the Single Judge regarding the payment of salary to a teacher. The Supreme Court restored the interim order of the Single Judge, directing that the teacher’s salary be continued and that the arrears be released within a month. The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of protecting the interests of long-serving employees during the pendency of legal proceedings and underscores the need for judicial restraint when modifying interim orders.