The case concerns Yogesh Kumar and others, who were appointed as Stenographers but later had their services terminated due to an excess of appointments. While their termination was previously upheld, the core of this appeal revolves around their unpaid salaries for eight years of service. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the High Court had been overly technical in denying the salary claim, emphasising that High Courts, as model litigants, should not take a hyper-technical view when employees have demonstrably worked. Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered the payment of salaries with interest and awarded costs to the appellant.
Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Disputed questions of fact – Civil action – Non-payment of salary – Appellant and others had applied in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the District Court – However, it appears that though at the relevant time, there were only three regular vacancies, since the Fast Track Courts were functioning, the appellant and others were appointed to work in the Fast Track Courts – Subsequently, after the Fast Track Courts seized to function, the services of the appellant and others appeared to have been terminated – While dismissing SLP this Court has specifically clarified that the dismissal of the special leave petition shall not prevent the appellant and others from seeking any such relief in an appropriate civil action – High Court has non-suited the appellant and others on the ground that an appropriate civil action would mean the proceedings only before a Civil Court – Held that the learned Single Judge has correctly considered the definition of a ‘civil action’; but, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not expected to be hyper-technical – Appellant and others had, in fact, put in eight years of service is not disputed by anyone at all – Even in case of disputed questions of fact, the High Court would be justified in entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -Such disputes can be decided on the basis of an affidavit evidence and no elaborate evidence is required to be led, the High Court would be justified in granting a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – In any case, the State as well as the High Courts are expected to be model litigants – 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 – Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Division Bench are not at all sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside – Respondents directed to pay the salary of the appellant and other similarly circumstances persons for the period during which they have actually worked in the District Court – The same shall be paid within a period of three months from today, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which the salaries ought to have been paid to them – Since the appellant and others who were made to run from one Court to another, specifically after 2012 i.e. the date on which the order was passed by this Court, the appellant would also be entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 1 lakh, to be paid within three months.
(Para 8 to 17)
Yogesh Kumar V. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 379: (DoJ 18-03-2025)
