SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 844

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 
Lovely Das, W/o - Sri Dilip Roy – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Department Of Education (Elementary) And Ors. – Respondents 
WP(C)/1573 OF 2023
Decided On : 30-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. P. Sarma, Sr. Counsel, assisted by, Mr. A. Roshid.
For the Respondent: Mr. P. N. Sarma, Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department.

The state cannot extract services from an employee without providing corresponding compensation. Under the principle of quantum meruit, an individual who has performed duties is entitled to remuneration, regardless of subsequent administrative claims regarding the initial selection process, as the right to salary is a protected right.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 300A - Right to salary - Right to property - Right to receive remuneration is a constitutional entitlement - Extraction of services without corresponding payment violates human rights and constitutional protections. (Paras 15, 15.1)

(B) Service Jurisprudence - Principle of quantum meruit - Remuneration for services rendered - The state is precluded from extracting labor from employees without providing compensation, irrespective of allegations concerning procedural irregularities in the initial recruitment process, provided the duties have been discharged. (Paras 15.2, 15.3, 15.4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was engaged as an instructor and performed continuous duties for over two decades. The authorities subsequently withheld salary, questioning the validity of the selection process and citing administrative discrepancies. Despite the petitioner serving in the assigned capacity, the respondent consistently denied the disbursement of arrears and current emoluments.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the respondent failed to substantiate claims of illegal appointment, as original records were unavailable to contradict the documents provided by the petitioner. It was held that when professional services are utilized by an employer, the underlying principle of fairness and equity necessitates the payment of commensurate wages.

Issues: Whether an employer is permitted to withhold salary for services rendered based on disputed procedural irregularities, and whether the right to salary for work performed constitutes a constitutionally protected interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the principle of quantum meruit, the state cannot benefit from the labor of an employee without fulfilling its reciprocating obligation to pay. The denial of wages for services already rendered infringes upon the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary state action and the right to property.

Result: Petition allowed; the authorities are directed to regularize the service and disburse the arrears within the specified timeframe.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding teacher appointment and service disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. parties' contentions concerning validity of appointment and entitlement to salary. (Para 4 , 8 , 9)
3. evaluation of evidence establishing the legality of the petitioner's selection. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. principle of quantum meruit for work performed and right to salary. (Para 14 , 15)
5. mandamus direction for regularization and payment of arrears. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

Heard Mr. R. P. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. N. Sarma, learnedStanding Counselfor the respondents in Elementary Education Department.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to regularize her service as Lower Primary School Teacher and also, to release the arrear monthly and current salariesof the petitioner, who has been serving as Assistant Teacher, under the respondent authorities.

Background facts :-

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under -

“Pursuant to an advertisement, issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioner had applied for a post of Assistant Teacher, under the jurisdiction of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Karimganj, now Sribhumi, and she had appeared before the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board, for Elementary EducationTeacher, Karimganj and she was selected and approved by the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board for Elementary Education, Karimganjfor appointment in Primary School, as Primary Teacher and she was appointed and posted at No. 499,DuhaliaLower Primary School, temporarily, as StipendiaryTeacher, with monthlystipend @Rs. 900 only, vide Memo No. DIK/99/2000/A-8/1241-48, dated 20.11.1999.

Thereafter, she was appointed against a permanent vacant post, by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Karimganj, on 28.03.2001, vide Letter No. DIK/2000-2001/A-8/1506-569, and she has been posted at No. 394 Nilmoni L.P. School, in a regular vacant post and she had joined there on 30.03.2001, and since then she has been rendering her service in the said school.

Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Karimganj, had issued a direction on 28.03.2001, to the Headmaster of the concerned School, directing to prepare ‘Kachabill’, with a view to forwarding the same to the concerned Block Elementary Education Officer/Deputy Inspector of Schools, for drawal of her salary and accordingly, the same was forwarded by the Headmaster, after preparation for drawal of the salary. But, no action was taken upon the same. She has not been paid any salary. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed one writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1103/2011, and the same was disposed of on 15.12.2011; directing the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, to examine her claim.

Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted all relevant documents before the authority and the same were examined by the Commissioner, Education Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6,and vide order, dated 18.07.2013;the prayer of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that her name does not appear in the select list of 112 Nos. of candidates, dated 27/10/1999.

It is the case of the petitioner that she had obtained the select lists, dated 27/10/1999 and 13/11/1999, through R.T.I. and found that her name appeared in the select list, dated 27/10/1999, at Serial No. 112; and that, the Order, dated 18.07.2013, was issued without due application of mind and the same is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside and quashed. And, it is also the case of the petitioner that she has not been paid salary, for which, she has been suffering from serious financial hardship.

Thereafter, vide letter, dated 11.05.2001, from the Secretary to the Government of Ass

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top