Orissa High Court Mandates Pay During Disciplinary Action

In a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional rights of employees, the Orissa High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Odisha, mandating the release of a lecturer’s salary that had been withheld due to ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The Division Bench, led by Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, reaffirmed that the state’s status as a "model employer" obligates it to provide fair wages for work performed, regardless of sub-judice status.

A Struggle for Dignity The case concerned Sunil Kumar Bhainsa, a lecturer whose salary had been withheld since November 2022. The state sought to challenge an earlier order from a Single Judge, which had directed the payment of his dues. However, the Division Bench declined to intervene, citing an unexplained 231-day delay in filing the appeal by the state authorities and the underlying merit of the lecturer's plea.

The Constitutional Mandate The core of the Court's reasoning rested on the intersection of Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 23 (Prohibition of Forced Labour) of the Constitution. Drawing on established precedent, the Court noted that the right to life encompasses more than mere physical existence; it includes the right to live with dignity, which depends heavily on one’s sustenance through livelihood.

The Court held that withholding salaries while an employee continues to provide service amounts to a form of forced labour—or begar —which is strictly prohibited by Article 23.

Key Observations The judgment relied on several seminal Supreme Court rulings to anchor its decision:

• On the breadth of Fundamental Rights: "The right to life guaranteed under Article 21 is not restricted or bound to mere physical existence of a person or their use of limbs to enjoy life but it also includes within its scope and ambit the right to live with basic human dignity." ( Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator )
• On Forced Labour: "Where a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the words 'forced labour' under Article 23." ( People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India )
• On the Employer's Obligation: "The State, being a model employer... an employee, who has worked in the State Employment for a particular period even during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding, cannot be justifiably denied wages that have accrued because of his striving."

A Firm Directive The High Court has directed the State to comply with the initial order to release the salary within an outer limit of eight weeks. Notably, the court clarified that this decision does not impact the merits of the pending disciplinary inquiry against the respondent, ensuring that the legal process regarding his conduct remains separate from his right to be paid for work already rendered.

This ruling serves as a stark reminder to state authorities that procedural delays or pending investigations do not grant a license to deprive employees of their basic means of livelihood. As reported by LiveLaw [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 62] , the judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to protecting the rights of individuals against state inaction.