The State's withholding of salaries for teachers for 19 months constitutes forced labour, violating Article 23 of the Constitution, which prohibits such practices.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

“a). Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, by directing the Respondents No. 2 to 5 herein to pass necessary order by releasing the monthly salary of the Petitioner from the month of May 2024 to till this month which is wrongly withheld by them.

b) Issue such any other Writ or order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard Smt. Vaibhavi Inamdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4; & Shri Kishor S.Sutar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The fifth respondent is the Institution which receives grants from the hands of the State. As necessary, on 29.09.2022, permission is granted by respondent No.2 to fill up all the vacant posts in respondent No.5 – School. The process of selection would commence and the result of the selection is appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers in the fifth respondent – School. Pursuant to the said appointment, the salaries of the petitioners are fixed and appointment order dated 24.03.2023, are issued again with the concurrence of the government. The petitioners like every person works without break. On 16.05.2024, it transpires that the State withholds salaries which the petitioners allege to be without any rhyme or reason. Challenging the said action of withholding of salaries, the petitioners approach this Court in W.P.No.104223/2024. A coordinate bench of this Court grants an interim order of stay of the communication which directs withholding the salaries of the petitioners, on 23.07.2024. The order reads as follows:

"Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Issue emergent notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6.

By impugned communication dated 16.05.2024, produced at Annexure-E, the salary payable to the petitioners is sought to be withheld with immediate effect without any prior notice or without there being any challenge to their very appointment.

There shall be stay of the Annexure-E, till the next date of hearing.

List on 28.08.2024."

(Emphasis supplied)

This is the first writ petition filed by the petitioners.

4. After the grant of an interim order in the aforesaid writ petition, a show cause notice comes to be issued to the petitioners as to why their appointment should not be cancelled. This is again challenged by the petitioners in W.P.No.105048/2024. Another coordinate bench directs the respondents not to precipitate the matter against the petitioners, in terms of an interim order dated 28.08.2024. The order reads as follows:

"Issue emergent notice.

Petitioners to pay process fee within three days. Registry to dispatch same forthwith. List after service.

Till then, respondents shall not precipitate in pursuance of Annexure-H.

Petitioners shall file objections against show cause notice within one week from today.”

(Emphasis supplied)

This is the second writ petition filed by the petitioners.

5. The second respondent then issues an order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioners and a direction to relieve them from service on 12.09.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners prefer an appeal invoking Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act 1983, before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority sets aside