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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13717

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
PREETHI PRABHAKARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3795 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED, SRI.C.R.REKHESH SHARMA
For the Respondents: SMT.V.A. HARITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Denial of salary due to pending approval constitutes a violation of constitutional rights and reflects arbitrary administrative action.

Headnote:The judgment addresses the illegal denial of salary to a promoted teacher due to pending approval, which violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court directs prompt decision on the promotion proposal, highlighting the arbitrary nature of the respondents' actions and the established legal framework in similar cases.

Result: Petition disposed of directing suitable action within two months and granting interim salary.

Table of Content
1. unlawful denial of salary due to pending promotion approval. (Para 1 , 2)
2. hearing opportunity for the petitioner required. (Para 3)
3. decision on promotion proposal mandated. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT Dated this the 19th day of February, 2026 The petitioner, an approved HSA (Hindi) in the

5th respondent’s School since 31.07.2003, possessing all requisite qualifications, was promoted and appointed as HSST (Hindi) with effect from 01.08.2025 against a regular vacancy arising on the retirement of an incumbent and has been continuously discharging duties as such.

2. However, solely due to the pendency of approval of her promotion before the 3rd respondent, the respondents have illegally denied her salary even in the lower scale attached to her approved post, causing severe financial hardship, despite repeated representations. Such denial is arbitrary, contrary to the binding Circular dated 06.11.1989 permitting payment of salary in the lower scale as an interim measure and is also against the settled law laid down by this Court in identical circumstances, including W.P.(C) No.24124/2024. The prolonged inaction of respondents 1 to 3 in considering the approval proposal and withholding salary is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, contends the petitioner.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4. Notice to respondents 5 to 7 is dispensed with in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition.

4. Ext.P2 would indicate that the petitioner was appointed / promoted as HSST (Hindi) with effect from 01.08.2025 and the Manager has forwarded the proposal to the Regional Deputy Director. The proposal was forwarded as early on 01.08.2025. Therefore, a decision in this regard should be taken without further delay.

In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P2 proposal and take appropriate decision thereon within a period of two months, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Manager. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall be paid salary applicable to the lower post.

Sd/-

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