Non-payment of remuneration for services rendered by a government appointee violates the right to livelihood under Article 21 and the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and cannot be justified by a lack of budgetary allocation.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…To issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of official Respondents No 1 to 3 for not taking any action in payment of arrears of amount under various head of account, which is affecting my professional life as illegal and violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to pay the entire arrears of remuneration to the Petitioner………”

2. Heard Mr. C.M.R. Velu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Assistant Government Pleader for Legislative Affairs appearing for respondent No.3.

3.1. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Government Pleader for the Courts of Senior Civil Judge and Junior Civil Judge at Janagaon vide G.O.Rt. No. 472 dated 07.09.2018, and was subsequently reappointed vide G.O.Rt. No. 203 dated 28.04.2021. In addition to his regular duties, the petitioner was entrusted with full additional charge to conduct cases before the Court of Additional/Principal District Judge, Janagaon, vide proceedings dated 03.01.2019, and he continued to discharge such higher responsibilities until 10.07.2024. As such, the petitioner rendered uninterrupted and satisfactory service for approximately 70 months, from 10.09.2018 to 10.07.2024, without any adverse remarks.

3.2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that while remuneration was paid up to March 2023, the respondents failed to pay honorarium for the period from April 2023 to June 2024 (i.e., 15 months), citing lack of budgetary allocation. The petitioner further contends that he was not paid additional charge allowance for discharging duties in higher courts, despite being entitled to the same under G.O.Rt. No. 733 dated 16.05.2009. It is also alleged that the tax deducted at source (TDS) from his remuneration was not remitted to his income tax account, thereby exposing him to financial and statutory prejudice. Despite repeated representations, no remedial action was taken, compelling the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction of the respondents in withholding legitimate dues is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that non-payment of earned remuneration for services duly rendered has seriously affected the petitioner’s livelihood and infringes his fundamental right to life with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further asserts that, having discharged his duties in accordance with applicable Government Orders, he had a legitimate expectation of receiving honorarium and allowances.

3.4. The failure of the respondents to pay additional charge allowance is stated to be in direct contravention of G.O.Rt. No. 733 dated 16.05.2009 and governing service conditions. The continued utilization of the petitioner’s services without due payment, amounts to unjust enrichment on the part of the State. Further, deduction of TDS without remittance to the Income Tax Department constitutes a breach of statutory obligations under Sections 200 and 203 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On these grounds, the peti