The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has issued a significant ruling clarifying that the state cannot withhold remuneration for work actually performed, regardless of any conditions stipulated in an initial engagement letter. The decision serves as a stern reminder to government authorities that contractual clauses permitting the denial of wages in the event of an adverse character verification report cannot override fundamental constitutional protections against the exploitation of labor.

The case centered on the petition of Dr. Saima Kabir, who had served as a Stipendiary Senior Resident at the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) in Srinagar. Despite fulfilling her professional responsibilities for nearly a year, Dr. Kabir found herself at the center of a payment dispute when her provisional engagement was cancelled ab initio following an adverse report from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) . While the legality of the cancellation itself was not the focus of the court’s primary directive, the question of whether the institution could legally retain the salary for the eleven months of labor already rendered became the crux of the dispute.

The Dispute Over Earned Compensation

Dr. Kabir’s tenure at the institute was defined by a provisional status, governed by specific terms that included a clause stating that an adverse report from the CID would result in the nullification of her entire engagement. As part of her onboarding, she had signed an undertaking accepting these conditions, effectively forfeiting her claim to the position should her character verification fail. When the report was received, SKIMS promptly cancelled her appointment from the very start, arguing that she had no legal right to any compensation, as her employment technically never existed under the terms of the agreement.

The petitioner , however, argued that while the cancellation of the position itself was a separate matter, the fact remained that she had provided daily clinical service in the Department of Anaesthesia. Having received payment for only the first month of her service, she sought the release of her unpaid salary, the provision of an experience certificate, and the return of a security deposit of ₹55,000. For the institute, the matter was one of contractual compliance ; they maintained that the doctor, having accepted the terms of her engagement, could not now seek to rewrite those rules to demand payment for a period of service that had been deemed void .

Challenging Contractual Conditions On Wages

The High Court ’s intervention turned on the fundamental interpretation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India , which prohibits human trafficking and forced labor. Justice M. A. Chowdhary, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the state’s administrative power to terminate a contract does not extend to the power to extract labor without compensation.

The Court noted in its observations: “Withholding and denial of payment of the remuneration for the period the petitioner had worked, would be violative of Article 23 of the Constitution of India . The condition in the engagement order which disentitles an appointee to wages/salary for the period for which she has worked, is in teeth of Article 23 of the Constitution and even on filing of an undertaking, cannot be enforced.”

By distinguishing between the validity of an employment contract and the inherent right to wages for work rendered, the Court effectively curbed the administrative practice of using " ab initio " cancellation clauses as a mechanism for financial forfeiture. The ruling underscores that while institutions may hold discretion in who they hire and how they vet candidates, that discretion ends where the physical labor of an individual begins. The Court acknowledged that while previous precedents, such as the decisions in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil and State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi , emphasize that courts should not rewrite contractual terms, those principles are not absolute when they come into conflict with constitutional mandates.

Judicial Directives On Administrative Obligations

The practical outcome of the judgment mandates that SKIMS must release all legitimately unpaid salary to Dr. Kabir within eight weeks. To ensure compliance, the Court further ordered that if the institute fails to meet this deadline, the outstanding amount will accrue simple interest at a rate of 6% per annum, calculated from the date the petition was filed. This provision acts as a financial safeguard, preventing further administrative delays that might otherwise force the petitioner into prolonged and costly litigation.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the request for an experience certificate. The institution had resisted this, citing the cancellation of her engagement as a reason to avoid any formal documentation of her service. The Court, however, found that an experience certificate is a simple factual record of time spent in a position, not an endorsement of the validity of the employment itself. Consequently, the authorities were directed to consider issuing a certificate that records only the objective period of her actual service, providing the doctor with the documentation necessary for her future professional endeavors without implying that her original engagement was ever validated.

Regarding the petitioner ’s claim for the refund of a ₹55,000 security deposit , the Court noted that the request was not pressed by the petitioner 's counsel, primarily due to the lack of documentary evidence to verify the deposit and the institution's strong denial of its existence. As a result, this portion of the petition was dismissed, narrowing the final relief to the core issues of earned wages and factual certification of service.

This ruling sends a clear signal to state-run institutions that administrative vetting procedures cannot be weaponized to effectively expropriate the labor of temporary employees. By prioritizing the constitutional right to remuneration over rigid contractual forfeiture clauses, the High Court has established a protective framework for professionals who find themselves in similar precarious employment situations. The case now moves into the implementation phase, with the medical institute tasked with calculating and releasing the salary arrears, thereby closing a chapter on a dispute that highlights the tension between bureaucratic integrity and the fundamental rights of the individual worker. The decision confirms that regardless of the validity of a person's appointment, the state is under an immutable obligation to pay for the services it has received.