Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Gayatri Singh Mehra vs Jiwaji University Gwalior on 2 May, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9777
1 WP-8533-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8533 of 2013
SMT.GAYATRI SINGH MEHRA
Versus
JIWAJI UNIVERSITY GWALIOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi - Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the nature of quo warranto thereby challenging the selection as well as appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Professor in Management.
It is submitted by counsel for Jiwaji University that respondent No.4 has already left her job.
Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that now, the petition which has been filed in the nature of quo warranto has rendered infructuous.
However, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that since, the appointment of respondent No.4 was challenged and she has illegally served the department, therefore, the salary paid to her be directed to be recovered.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The moot question for consideration is as to whether, this Court can direct for refund of salary in case if it is found that appointment was bad or not?
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Munnalal Rajak Vs. State Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 5/6/2025 5:44:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9777 2 WP-8533-2013 of M.P. and Others decided on 16/08/2019 in W.A.No.1326/2019 has held as under:-
"In our considered opinion, the case of a workman having worked for extended period under an order of the Court cannot be equated with that of manufacturer who holds back the Excise Duty. Workman having put his labour is entitled for the wages, the denial of which may tantamount to "begar" which is contrary to our Constitutional philosophy. Article 23 of the Constitution mandates:
"23. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour.-
(1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. (2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purpose, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them."
Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in "Sita Ram Yadav V. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and another [1990 LAB. I.C. 1025]", has observed:
"14. We see no justification for non-payment of the salary to the petitioner for the period for which he has worked. He is entitled for the salary for the period beyond last terminus date of approval for the duration for which he has worked. The matter has to be viewed seriously in view of the fact that non-payment of salary amounts not only deprivation of the right of livelihood covered under Art. 21 of the Constitution, but it also breaches the mandate under Art.23 of the Constitution."Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 5/6/2025 5:44:16 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9777 3 WP-8533-2013 Similarly, dwelling upon the aspect as to whether Article 23 of the Constitution is wide enough to include in its sweep exploitation of a Government servant or employees of instrumentality of State, in "Shri Mukesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others [2000 LAB. I.C. 1000]" it was observed by the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in paragraphs 12 and 13:
"12. The article prohibits begar and other similar form of forced labour. The meaning of these expression and the ambit and scope of the article has been discussed in detail in People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra). The Court held that the sweep of the article was very wide and unlimited as the Constitution makers were endeavouring to bring about socio-economic regeneration with a view to reach social justice to common man. The Court held that the article struck at forced labour in whichever form it manifested itself because it was violative of human values. The Court took notice of social conditions prevailing in our society and observed that poverty and unemployment resulted in unequal bargaining power leading to Hobson's choice either to starve or submit to exploitative terms dictated by the employer giving rise to legitimate presumption that when a person provides labour of service to another person against receipt of remuneration which is less than the minimum wage he is acting under force of such compulsion which drives him to work though he is paid less than what be is entitled to receive. The Court having explained, forced labour thus extended its scope by applying it to situations where a person was forced by economic considerations to accept lesser remuneration and held that :
"The word 'force' must therefore be construed to include not only physical or legal force but also force arising from the compulsion of economic circumstances which leave no choice of alternatives to a person in want and compels him to provide labour or service Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 5/6/2025 5:44:16 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9777
4 WP-8533-2013 even though the remuneration received for it is less than the minimum wages Act." 13. This decision was rendered by the apex court on a public interest litigation filed for benefit of workers engaged by the contractors to whom the work of construction was entrusted by Delhi Development Authority or Union of India for completing projects during Asiad. The entire decision was based on admission by the Union of India that even though it paid the minimum wages of Rs. 9/25 per worker to the contractor he deducted Rs. 1/- as his commission. The worker thus received one rupee less. The importance of the decision lies in that it explains the scope of Article 23. It has been extended to any form of begar or forced labour either due to economic compulsion or otherwise. The words and expressions used in the article are of wide sweep. They were construed broadly by the apex court. The word begar has been described by Molesworth as "labour or service extracted by a Government or person in power without giving remuneration for it." It was approved by the apex court in People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra).
Therefore, the article is wide enough and extends to actions of the Government if it results in taking service without paying any or full remuneration. In Suraj v. State of M. P., AIR 1960 MP 303 the salary of a teacher was stopped as he was not willing to work against the terms of his appointment. The Court held that begar includes taking work without remuneration even temporarily. It was observed "To ask a man to work and then not to pay him any salary or wages savours of begar." Similarly, if the Government or its instrumentality pays lesser amount than the amount fixed for a particular job then it is as much begar as paying nothing.........."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 5/6/2025 5:44:16 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9777 5 WP-8533-2013 We respectfully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court.
In view whereof, in the case at hand, as the petitioner had worked for the period from his actual date of retirement till the date of passing of order in Writ Petition by virtue of an interim order, he cannot be deprived of the wages of said period. He will be entitled for the wages as a right; though the period shall not be counted for other retiral dues. Consequently, the direction for recovery of the salary for the period from 01.04.2019 till the decision in Writ Petition is set aside."
Thus, it is clear that even if the appointment of respondent No.4 is quashed still this Court cannot direct for recovery of salary paid to respondent No.4 during her tenure as Professor in Management.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that once respondent No.4 has left the job, then no useful purpose would be served by entertaining this petition.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE PjS/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 5/6/2025 5:44:16 PM