In a significant ruling reaffirming the role of constitutional courts in delivering substantive justice over procedural rigidity, the Supreme Court of India on March 18, 2025, directed the State of Uttar Pradesh and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to pay full salary dues along with interest to a group of stenographers who were terminated despite having worked for eight years.
The case titled Yogesh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025, was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Background of the Case
In 2002, Yogesh Kumar and six others were appointed as stenographers in the District Court, Saharanpur, pursuant to a recruitment advertisement. However, only three positions had been formally advertised. Four of the selected candidates, including Kumar, were later found to be appointed “in excess” of the sanctioned posts.
On February 28, 2005, the District Judge terminated their services. A prolonged legal battle ensued:
– A writ petition challenging the termination (W.P. No. 43168 of 2005) was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court in 2012.
– An intra-court appeal (Special Appeal No. 1180 of 2012) was also dismissed.
– The Supreme Court, dismissing the Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 26959 of 2012), granted the appellants liberty to seek salary dues through “appropriate civil action.”
Following this, the appellants made representations to the District Judge seeking payment of salary for their 8 years of service. When rejected, they again approached the High Court through W.P. No. 26698 of 2015 and later Special Appeal Defective No. 456 of 2019—both of which were dismissed.
Key Legal Issues
1. Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can entertain claims for salary dues in light of a prior Supreme Court direction to take “civil action.”
2. Whether denial of salary for 8 years of actual service amounts to unjust enrichment by the State.
3. Interpretation of “appropriate civil action” — does it exclude writ remedies?
Judgment and Observations
The Supreme Court sharply disagreed with the High Court’s interpretation that only a civil suit could qualify as “appropriate civil action.” Justice Gavai, writing the judgment, held:
“While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not expected to be hyper-technical.”
The Court emphasized that even if the appointments were irregular, the fact that the appellants actually worked for eight years could not be overlooked. The Court relied on its precedent in ABL International Ltd. v. ECGC of India Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 553], stating that writ courts can entertain monetary claims where the facts are undisputed and supported by affidavit evidence.
The Court also cited its decisions in:
– Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Ltd. [(2010) 11 SCC 186]
– Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(2020) 19 SCC 241]
– Unitech Ltd. v. TSIIC [(2021) 16 SCC 35]
Notably, the bench observed:
“The State as well as the High Courts are expected to be model litigants. The High Court is not expected to take a hyper-technical view, when dealing with the case of payment of salary of the employees of the District Judiciary, who have actually put in eight years of service.”
Direction of the Court
1. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s orders dated May 16, 2019 (Division Bench) and May 23, 2018 (Single Judge).
2. Directed respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh and High Court of Allahabad) to:
– Pay full salary for the eight years of service to the appellant and similarly situated persons.
– Include interest at 6% per annum from the date salary became due.
– Make the payment within 3 months.
3. Additionally, the Court awarded Rs. 1 lakh as costs to Yogesh Kumar, considering the prolonged litigation.
Lawyers Involved
– For Appellant: Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate
– For Respondents: Shri Vishal Meghwal, Advocate for the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
