The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that compassionate appointments cannot be denied salary arrears on grounds of pending police verification, especially when the employee has already joined and served. This judgment underscores that non-payment of salary for an employee whose appointment is not under dispute amounts to contempt of court, reinforcing the principle that administrative delays cannot deprive an employee of rightful dues.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, was appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, who was a Head Teacher in the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Department. The appointment was formalized vide appointment letter dated 01.08.2024, and the petitioner joined as a Peon (Anuchar) at Upper Primary School, Saidha, Block-Harakh, District-Barabanki, on 09.08.2024. Despite joining and serving, the petitioner was not paid salary for the period from 09.08.2024 to August 2025.
Key Facts
The petitioner’s father was employed as a Head Teacher in the Basic Education Department
The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds vide appointment letter dated 01.08.2024
The petitioner joined on 09.08.2024 and continued to serve
A character certificate was issued in favor of the petitioner
The petitioner was not paid salary for the period 09.08.2024 to August 2025
The respondents cited pending police verification as the reason for non-payment
The petitioner was implicated in Case Crime No. 133 of 2007 under Section 3/9 of the Examination Act, but no charge sheet was filed against him
Procedural History
The petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court earlier, seeking salary payment
The Court passed an interim order directing payment of salary on a month-to-month basis
The earlier writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2025, with directions to decide the petitioner’s representation for grant of salary
Despite the directions, the salary arrears remained unpaid
The present Writ Petition (Writ-A No. 4972 of 2026) was filed seeking a writ of mandamus to release the arrears
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that his appointment was not under dispute and that he had joined and served as required
He contended that pending police verification could not justify non-payment of salary, especially since no charge sheet was filed against him in Case Crime No. 133 of 2007
It was further argued that the respondents’ failure to comply with the earlier court directions amounted to contempt of court
For the Respondents
The respondents, represented by learned counsel Uday Veer Singh, argued that the salary could not be released due to pending police verification
They did not dispute the petitioner’s appointment or service but insisted that administrative procedures required completion of verification
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release arrears of salary for the period 09.08.2024 to August 2025
Payment of salary within two months from the date of the order
A clarification that non-payment would amount to contempt
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether non-payment of salary to an employee appointed on compassionate grounds could be justified on the basis of pending police verification, particularly when:
The appointment was not under dispute
The employee had joined and served
No charge sheet was filed in the pending criminal case
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Relied on the principle that compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee
Argued that pending police verification could not be a ground for withholding salary when the employee had already joined and served
Contended that the respondents’ failure to comply with earlier court directions was arbitrary and amounted to contempt of court
For the Respondents
Contended that police verification was a mandatory administrative requirement before salary could be released
Did not dispute the petitioner’s appointment or service but insisted on compliance with procedural formalities
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that:
The petitioner’s appointment was not under any cloud and there was no dispute regarding his joining and service
The respondents’ reliance on pending police verification was not justified, especially since no charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in the pending criminal case
Non-payment of salary for an employee who had joined and served was arbitrary and unjustified
The Court relied on the principle that compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee, and administrative delays cannot deprive an employee of rightful dues. The Court held:
"Once the appointment of the petitioner is not under any cloud and there is no dispute that the petitioner has worked, the reasoning for non-payment of salary for the period 09.08.2024 till August, 2025 as recorded above, cannot be held to be justified."
The Court further clarified that irrespective of any impediment caused by the police authority, the salary arrears must be paid as directed.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to:
Release arrears of salary for the period 09.08.2024 to August 2025
Ensure payment within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order
Clarified that non-payment would amount to contempt of court
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Verification Cannot Justify Non-Payment of Salary
Compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee
Pending police verification cannot be used as a ground to withhold salary when the employee has joined and served
Courts are likely to view non-payment as arbitrary if the appointment is not under dispute
Administrative Delays Must Not Deprive Employees of Rightful Dues
Service law prioritizes the rights of employees over procedural delays
Non-compliance with court directions may lead to contempt proceedings
Employees can seek writs of mandamus to enforce payment of salary arrears
Contempt of Court as a Remedy for Non-Compliance
The Court explicitly warned that non-payment of salary would amount to contempt of court
This judgment reinforces that administrative authorities must comply with court orders within the stipulated timelines
Employees can use this precedent to challenge arbitrary withholding of dues
