Satish Kumar Singh - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1101

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ajit Kumar, J
Satish Kumar Singh
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1898 of 2026

Important Points

The State is legally obligated to pay salary for work actually performed by an employee, even if the appointment is deemed irregular.

Subject

Service Law - Salary and Wages

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.23

Headnote

The petitioner, working as a Panchayat Teacher, invoked Article 23 of the Constitution of India seeking payment of unpaid wages/salary from 15.04.2015 to date, asserting that duties were discharged continuously despite the salary being withheld arbitrarily. The court noted the petitioner's reliance on the principle that the State is bound to pay for work actually performed. The primary issue is whether an employee is entitled to salary for work performed even if the appointment is irregular. The court observed that in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the State must compensate employees for actual work performed regardless of the regularity of the appointment. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bipin Bihari Singh
For the Respondents: Government Pleader (26)

Table of Content
1. right to wages for work performed regardless of appointment regularity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. administrative adjudication of claims based on judicial precedents. (Para 4)
3. judicial direction for time-bound administrative resolution of salary grievances. (Para 5 , 6)

ORAL ORDER

05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant writ application has been filed seeking a direction to the authorities concerned for payment of wages/salary to the petitioner from the date of his joining, i.e. 15.04.2015, till date for his continuous work against the respective post, which, according to the petitioner, remains unpaid arbitrarily and unreasonably, despite various orders/communications issued by the authorities themselves directing that such payment should not be withheld. The petitioner has also invoked his rights under Article 23 of the Constitution of India and has further prayed for payment of interest on the delayed payment along with litigation costs for alleged unnecessary harassment.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that despite having discharged his duties continuously from the date of joining, i.e. 15.04.2015, till date, his salary has not been paid without any justifiable reason. He further submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Man Singh vs. State of U.P. , reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 341, wherein it has been held that even if an appointment is irregular, the State is bound to pay salary for the work actually performed by the employee.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner may be directed to file an appropriate representation along with all necessary documents for adjudication of his claim, and that the authorities concerned would consider the claim of the petitioner strictly in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Man Singh (supra).

5. In view of the submissions advanced by the parties, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation, in continuation of the earlier representation, appending all requisite documents, including a copy of this order, before respondent no. 3 within a period of four weeks from today. Upon filing of such representation, respondent no. 3 shall adjudicate the grievance of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation with respect to the claim of salary, after verification from the records regarding the duties discharged. Necessary orders shall be passed, and if the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine, the admissible amount shall be paid to the petitioner within the same period.

6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands disposed of.