Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court

"Begar means labour or service exacted by Government or a person in power without giving remuneration for it... To allow the respondents to deny salary and wages to the petitioner would amount to allowing the respondents to contravene the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution. It is impermissible" Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), in a significant ruling, held that the State cannot stop the salary of school employees without notice or an order, as such an act violates the fundamental rights to equality and life.

A bench comprising Justice Smt. M. S. Jawalkar and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande observed that exacting duties from teachers—including election and census work—while withholding their pay constitutes "Begar," which is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that the right to livelihood is an integral facet of Article 21 and cannot be subjected to the "individual fancies" of authorities.

The petitioners are teaching and non-teaching staff members of various private aided schools in Maharashtra who had been serving for over 10 to 15 years with valid approvals. Their salaries were abruptly stopped in March 2025 following a news report alleging irregularities in the "Shalarth ID" system (an electronic salary disbursal portal). Under the pretext of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) enquiry, the State withheld their salaries and eventually issued vague show-cause notices followed by orders cancelling their appointments and approvals.

The primary question before the court was whether the State could unilaterally stop the salary of duly appointed employees without following the principles of natural justice. The court also considered whether the summary enquiry process, conducted in "undue haste" without specific allegations of fraud against the employees, could legally justify the cancellation of long-standing service approvals.

Withholding Salary Without Order Is Patently Illegal

The court found that the action of the respondents in stopping the petitioners' salaries from March 2025 without any formal order or prior notice was arbitrary and unreasonable. It noted that the petitioners had been discharging their duties continuously, including special duties like census and election work, despite receiving no remuneration for over a year.

Stoppage Of Salary Amounts To 'Begar' Under Article 23

The bench remarked that the Government is constitutionally prohibited from exacting work without remuneration. It noted that if there is a deliberate denial of a substantial part of the salary to which a person is entitled, the offence of 'Begar' may be committed. The court held that allowing the respondents to deny wages while utilizing the petitioners' labour would contravene the constitutional protection against forced labour.

"To allow the respondents to deny salary and wages to the petitioner would amount to allowing the respondents to contravene the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution. It is impermissible."

Vague Show Cause Notices Violate Natural Justice

The court scrutinized the show-cause notices issued by the Deputy Director of Education and found them to be completely devoid of specific details. The notices did not whisper any specific charge of irregularity or point out any particular fraud alleged to have been committed by the individual employees. Relying on the precedent of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Brindavan Beverages, the court held that vague and unintelligible notices prevent a party from having a proper opportunity to defend themselves.

Group Hearings Conducted In 'Undue Haste' Were A Farce

The bench expressed "serious displeasure" regarding the manner in which the enquiries were conducted. In several instances, the authorities called 150 employees on a single day and merely directed them to fill out a 22-point questionnaire. The court characterized this process as a "farce" and an "eye-wash," noting that such a summary procedure cannot justify the "civil death" resulting from termination of service.

"Termination from service amounts to civil death. We, therefore, express our serious displeasure for the manner in which the hearing has been conducted... such a hearing clearly appears to be a farce or an eye-wash."

Employees Cannot Be Penalized For Management's Faults

The court observed that the reasons cited for cancelling approvals—such as roster reservation errors or recruitment procedural lapses—were attributable to the school management, not the teachers. It held that after 10 to 15 years of service, it would be a "travesty of justice" to deprive teachers of their livelihood for technical procedural lacunae. The bench emphasized that the petitioners were bona fide applicants from the open market with no role in the administrative generation of Shalarth IDs.

Approvals Cannot Be Recalled Without Establishing Fraud

The court reaffirmed the legal position that once individual approvals are granted, they cannot be interfered with unless a specific case of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression is established against the employee. It noted that the authorities had inspected the schools annually for over a decade without raising any objections. The bench held that the office of the respondents was not in order and they were unfairly blaming teachers for flaws in the State's own electronic systems.

Final Directions and Restoration of Approvals

The High Court quashed and set aside the purported show-cause notices and the subsequent cancellation orders. It restored the petitioners' approvals and Shalarth IDs, directing the State to release all withheld salaries from March 2025 and to continue paying the same. The court clarified that the State remains at liberty to issue fresh, specific notices only if there are genuine grounds to indicate fraud or misrepresentation where the teachers were parties to such acts.

The court concluded that the State's arbitrary action defeated the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14, 21, and 23 of the Constitution of India. It ruled that the authorities cannot utilize the services of teachers while leaving them to "starve" due to administrative shortcomings. The judgment serves as a stern reminder that administrative efficiency cannot bypass the mandatory requirements of the principles of natural justice and constitutional safeguards.

Date of Decision: April 21, 2026