Bombay High Court Orders Teachers’ Withheld Salaries With 12% Interest; Holds NPS Optional and Salary Denial for Refusing Scheme Violates Article 21 Livelihood Rights
Bombay High Court Allows Teachers’ Challenge to Compulsory NPS; Holds Salary Withholding Illegal and Orders Outstanding Pay With 12% Interest for Years-Long Delay
Facts
The petition was filed by Shrikant Govindrao Sukte, Madhukar Tukaram Chavan and Jaywant Tukaram Gandhkwad, primary school teachers working in a school run by Panchayat Samiti, Dahanu. They sought payment of salaries withheld from July 2022 along with consequential benefits and interest.
The dispute arose from a letter dated 21 July 2022 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad directing that salaries of teachers who had not registered or opened accounts under the National Pension Scheme (NPS) should be withheld.
Pursuant to that direction, the Block Education Officer issued a further communication dated 25 July 2022, directing Headmasters and teachers to stop salaries of employees who had not joined the NPS.
The petitioners made representations requesting that NPS should not be made compulsory and that their salaries should not be withheld merely because they did not consent to contribute to the scheme.
Their representations were ignored, and their salaries were stopped from July 2022 without notice. The Chief Finance Officer also directed action against employees who did not consent to NPS.
After the writ petition was filed and notice was issued, the authorities eventually released part of the petitioners’ salaries. However, 10% of their salaries was deducted and credited into NPS accounts which, according to the petitioners, they had been coerced into opening.
Issues
The principal issues before the Bombay High Court were:
- Whether the National Pension Scheme could compulsorily be imposed upon the petitioners under the Government Order dated 19 September 2019.
- Whether the authorities had any statutory or administrative power to withhold teachers’ salaries merely because they refused to open or contribute to NPS accounts.
- Whether withholding salaries while continuing to take the petitioners’ services amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of their right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the petitioners were entitled to their outstanding salary arrears together with interest for the prolonged withholding.
- Whether financial consequences of the authorities’ illegal action could be recovered from the individual officers responsible for withholding the salaries.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that the NPS could not legally be forced upon them.
They relied upon the Government Order dated 19 September 2019, which applied the NPS to teaching and non-teaching staff of government schools and government-aided private schools.
Their case was that the Government Order nowhere made participation in the NPS compulsory or mandatory.
More importantly, it contained no provision authorising the authorities to stop or withhold salaries merely because a teacher declined to participate in the scheme.
The petitioners also relied upon the Education Commissioner’s communication dated 22 December 2021, which specifically instructed the concerned authorities that no teacher or staff member should be forced to close a General Provident Fund (GPF) account and open an NPS account.
That communication further expressly directed that salaries of teachers refusing to switch to NPS should not be withheld or deducted.
Thus, the petitioners argued that withholding their salaries was not merely unsupported by the Government Order but directly contrary to the State Education Commissioner’s instructions.
Respondents’ Arguments
The judgment records appearances and hearing of the advocates representing the Panchayat Samiti, Zilla Parishad and State Government, but does not set out any substantial independent legal justification advanced by the respondents for withholding the salaries.
The record instead demonstrated that the authorities had acted pursuant to administrative directions requiring salaries to be withheld from teachers who did not register under NPS.
By the time the petition was heard, the authorities had already disbursed part of the petitioners’ salaries after receiving notice of the writ petition, although 10% had been deducted towards NPS.
Analysis of the Law
NPS Was Not Compulsory Under the Government Order
The Court examined the Government Order dated 19 September 2019 and found no provision making NPS compulsory for the concerned teachers.
The Division Bench expressly held that participation in the scheme was “clearly at the option of the teachers.”
Equally important, the Government Order contained no provision empowering the authorities to withhold salary from employees who declined to participate.
Thus, both the purported mandatory NPS requirement and the coercive salary stoppage lacked legal foundation.
Education Commissioner Had Expressly Prohibited Forced NPS Enrollment
The Court attached significance to the Education Commissioner’s letter dated 22 December 2021.
That communication expressly stated that:
- teachers and staff should not be forced to close GPF accounts;
- they should not be compelled to open NPS accounts; and
- their salaries should neither be withheld nor deducted for refusing to switch to NPS.
Despite these explicit directions, the regional authorities proceeded to withhold the petitioners’ salaries.
The Court regarded this disregard of superior administrative instructions as an additional indicator of arbitrary exercise of power.
Salary and Article 21 Right to Livelihood
The most significant constitutional aspect of the judgment concerned Article 21.
The Court reaffirmed that the right to livelihood forms an integral part of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21.
Accordingly, livelihood cannot be made dependent upon the individual preferences or “fancies” of officials exercising administrative authority.
Where an employer or management continues to accept an employee’s services, it cannot simultaneously refuse to pay salary for those services.
The Court characterised such conduct as:
“exploitation amounting to depriving a person of his/her right to livelihood.”
Thus, salary withholding was not treated merely as a technical service-law irregularity; it was regarded as an impermissible interference with the constitutional protection of livelihood.
Interest as Compensation for Illegal Salary Withholding
The Court also recognised the practical hardship caused when an employee is deprived of monthly salary for several years.
The petitioners had continued working but had remained without their regular salaries from July 2022 until the filing of the writ petition.
Because the deprivation resulted from the respondents’ “high handedness”, the Court considered mere repayment of the principal salary insufficient.
It therefore awarded 12% interest on the amounts wrongfully withheld.
Personal Accountability of Responsible Officers
Significantly, the Court did not necessarily require the public exchequer to permanently bear the financial consequence of the illegal administrative action.
It expressly granted the authorities liberty to recover the interest component from the salaries of the officers who directed or permitted the withholding of the petitioners’ salaries.
This introduces an element of personal administrative accountability for arbitrary exercise of public power.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not cite or undertake a detailed analysis of reported judicial precedents.
Instead, the Division Bench decided the controversy principally by examining:
- the Government Order dated 19 September 2019 governing application of NPS;
- the Education Commissioner’s communication dated 22 December 2021, expressly prohibiting forced closure of GPF accounts, compulsory NPS enrollment and salary withholding; and
- the constitutional protection of the right to livelihood under Article 21.
The judgment therefore rests predominantly on the governing administrative instruments and the settled constitutional proposition that the right to livelihood is an integral component of Article 21.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court strongly deprecated the respondents’ conduct.
Its reasoning proceeded in a straightforward sequence.
First, the Government Order relied upon by the authorities did not make NPS mandatory.
Second, the same Government Order contained no power to stop salary because a teacher refused to join the scheme.
Third, the Education Commissioner had already expressly directed that teachers should not be compelled to shift from GPF to NPS and that their salaries should not be withheld.
Fourth, notwithstanding these instructions, the petitioners’ salaries were stopped while the authorities continued to take their services.
The Court held that this amounted to exploitation and deprivation of livelihood contrary to Article 21.
The Court was particularly critical that the authorities had ignored the Education Commissioner’s own directions and described their conduct as an “arbitrary exercise of power.”
Finally, because the petitioners had been deprived of their monthly salaries for a prolonged period solely due to administrative high-handedness, the Court considered an award of substantial interest justified.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition.
Since part of the salaries had already been released after filing of the petition, the Court directed the concerned respondents to disburse all outstanding salaries within ten days from uploading of the judgment.
The respondents were further directed to pay the petitioners 12% interest on the amounts withheld from July 2022 until the respective dates on which payment was made.
Most significantly, the Court permitted the authorities to recover the interest amount from the salaries of the individual officers who directed or permitted the illegal withholding.
The judgment establishes that where NPS participation is optional, authorities cannot use withholding of salary as a coercive mechanism to compel teachers to join the scheme; taking an employee’s services while denying salary constitutes arbitrary exploitation affecting the Article 21 right to livelihood.
Case Details
Case: Shrikant Govindrao Sukte & Others v. Panchayat Samiti Dahanu & Others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 331 of 2023
Judges: Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
Date: 20 August 2026; Reserved on 17 August 2026
Result: Writ petition allowed; outstanding salaries directed to be paid within ten days with 12% interest on amounts withheld since July 2022; authorities permitted to recover the interest from officers responsible for withholding salaries
