A public employee’s right to salary cannot be suspended merely because of a criminal arrest, provided the individual remains employed and continues to discharge duties. The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed this principle in a recent order, reinforcing that employment rights under service law are distinct from criminal proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Sajid Khan, a government employee of the Nagar Nigam, Jodhpur, was arrested in a criminal case but was released on bail on 30 March 2025. He resumed his duties on 10 February 2025 and has been regularly performing his responsibilities since then. Despite this, he has not received any salary for over a year, leading to severe financial hardship for him and his family.
Procedural History
- March 2025: Petitioner released on bail after criminal arrest
- 10 February 2025: Petitioner resumed duties at Nagar Nigam, Jodhpur
- February 2026: Petitioner filed writ petition seeking payment of pending salary and arrears
- 17 February 2026: High Court heard arguments and issued directions
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought immediate payment of unpaid salary and arrears, along with a direction to the respondents to decide his representation in accordance with law and without undue delay.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public servant who has been released on bail and continues to discharge duties is entitled to salary and arrears, or whether the pendency of a criminal case automatically suspends such entitlement.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner’s employment status remained intact since his bail and resumption of duties. He relied on the principle that service rights are distinct from criminal liability, citing State of U.P. v. Rameshwar Prasad to assert that mere arrest or pendency of charges does not justify withholding salary. He emphasized that no departmental inquiry had been initiated, and no order of suspension had been passed.
For the Respondent
The State did not file a written reply. No counter-affidavit was submitted, and the respondents did not contest the petitioner’s claim of continuous service or the absence of suspension orders. The absence of opposition weakened their legal position.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of public employment and the conditions under which salary can be withheld. It noted that salary is not a bounty but a statutory right accruing for services rendered. The Court observed that the petitioner had not been suspended, nor had any disciplinary proceedings been initiated. The mere existence of a criminal case, without a formal order of suspension or termination, cannot justify non-payment.
"The petitioner has been discharging his duties since 10.02.2025. There is no order of suspension or termination. The pendency of a criminal case, without more, cannot be a ground to withhold salary."
The Court further held that the respondents’ inaction amounted to a violation of the petitioner’s right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution. The absence of a reasoned order denying salary rendered the non-payment arbitrary and procedurally unfair.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that a public servant who continues to work after bail is entitled to salary and arrears, and directed the respondents to pay all outstanding dues within fifteen days of receiving the certified copy of the order, provided no lawful impediment exists.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Salary Cannot Be Withheld Without Suspension Order
- Practitioners must now argue that non-payment of salary without a formal suspension order is illegal
- Employers cannot rely on criminal proceedings alone to justify non-payment
- The burden shifts to the employer to prove a lawful basis for withholding pay
Continuous Service Preserves Entitlement
- If an employee resumes duties after bail, their service is deemed uninterrupted
- Arrears must be calculated from the date of resumption, not from the date of arrest
- Employers must issue written orders for suspension or termination - mere administrative inaction is insufficient
Procedural Fairness Is Mandatory
- Any decision to withhold salary must be accompanied by a speaking and reasoned order
- Failure to provide reasons renders the action liable to judicial review
- Petitioners in similar cases may now cite this order to demand timely adjudication of salary disputes
