Salary Is 'Property' Under Article 300-A, Cannot Be Withheld Without Due Process Of Law: Bombay High Court

"Salary is a property within the meaning of Art. 300-A of the Constitution of India. Salary of an employee, therefore, cannot be withheld except for cogent reasons," Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, in a significant judgment dated April 27, 2026, has ruled that the right to receive salary is a constitutional right protected under the ambit of 'property' under Article 300-A.

A division bench comprising Justice M. S. Jawalkar and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande observed that the state or school authorities cannot abruptly stop the remuneration of approved teachers without following the principles of natural justice and providing a specific show-cause notice.

The case arose from a cluster of 86 writ petitions filed by assistant teachers, clerks, and peons whose salaries were stopped in March 2025. These employees had been serving in various private schools for over 10 to 15 years with valid appointments and approvals. However, the respondent authorities suddenly cancelled their approvals and 'Shalarth IDs' without prior notice, alleging irregularities in the initial recruitment process.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondents could withhold salaries and cancel existing approvals without conducting a proper inquiry or issuing a specific show-cause notice. The court was also called upon to determine if such an administrative action, initiated after a decade of service, constitutes a violation of the constitutional protection of property under Article 300-A.

Salary As Constitutional Property Under Article 300-A

The court placed heavy reliance on the principle that salary is not mere bounty but property that attracts constitutional protection. Citing the precedent in Pran Gopal Roy v. Lakshmi Banerjee, the bench noted that if an employer believes a teacher is not performing their duties, the proper course is to initiate disciplinary proceedings rather than arbitrarily stopping payments.

The bench emphasized that simply withholding salary without any inquiry or specific finding of misconduct is illegal and unreasonable. Such an action deprives an individual of their property without the authority of law, which is a direct contravention of the mandate provided under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

State Cannot Extract Work Without Paying Remuneration

While discussing the obligations of the government, the court observed that the State is expected to be a 'Model Employer'. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the bench held that even if an appointment is considered irregular at a later stage, the State cannot take work from an employee without the payment of salary for the period they have discharged their duties.

The judges noted that in the present case, the respondents continued to exact duties from the petitioners, including teaching, election work, and census duties, while simultaneously denying them their rightful pay. The court held that such a practice is unsustainable and amounts to a colourable exercise of power by the administrative authorities.

"Undue Haste" In Inquiry Violates Natural Justice

The court criticized the manner in which the respondent-authorities conducted the "hearings" prior to cancelling the approvals. It was observed that nearly 150 teachers were called on a single day and directed to fill out a 22-point form without being given a proper opportunity to meet specific allegations. The bench termed this procedure a "farce" and an "eyewash" conducted with undue haste.

Failure To Follow Procedure Under Government Resolutions

The bench pointed out that the authorities failed to follow the procedure prescribed in the Government Resolution (GR) dated June 10, 2022. According to the GR, if an earlier approval is found to be irregular, the authorities must pass a reasoned interim order and conduct a detailed inquiry where the concerned employee and the management are given a fair hearing.

The court found that the enquiry was conducted in the absence of the officers who had originally issued the approvals, rendering the entire process a violation of the State's own guidelines. The bench held that any action touching upon an irregularity can be confronted with the management, but the employees cannot be made to suffer after years of service.

Irregularities vs. Fraud In Long-Term Service

Relying on Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court held that approvals granted cannot be interfered with after a long lapse of time unless a clear case of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression is established. The bench noted that even if the Education Officer had granted an approval erroneously, it cannot be a ground to recall the order after 10 to 15 years of unblemished service.

The court concluded that the subsequent actions of the respondents, based on vague and non-specific show-cause notices, were unsustainable in law. The bench directed the immediate restoration of the Shalarth IDs and approvals of the petitioners, affirming that for any flaws in the administrative system, the teachers and staff cannot be blamed as they have no role in the internal verification processes of the Education Department.

The High Court partly allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned communications and cancellation orders issued between March and May 2025. The bench clarified that while the authorities are at liberty to issue fresh, specific show-cause notices in cases of suspected fraud, the petitioners must continue to receive their salaries in the interim as their services remain unbroken.

Date of Decision: April 27, 2026