Denied duty despite stay on transfer: Gauhati High Court orders centre to pay postal employee 3 years of salary arrears

The bench said that the tribunal was absolutely justified in holding that the salary of the respondent could not be stopped.

The order added that the tribunal was absolutely justified in holding that the salary of the respondent for the period from January, 2021 to November, 2023, when he was allowed to work, could not be stopped as it was not out of the choice of the respondent.

Case of transfer and cessation of salary

The respondent, Tapas Kumar Chakraborty, an assistant superintendent who joined the department of Posts in 1997, was transferred from the Cachar Division to the Darrang Division in September 2020. The transfer was initiated following the revocation of his suspension to facilitate a disciplinary inquiry at his original station.

He challenged this transfer before the CAT, citing his son’s upcoming board examinations and his wife’s posting in Cachar. In October 2020, the tribunal granted an interim stay on the transfer and release orders.

While the department initially paid his salary through December 2020, it ceased payments from January 2021 onwards. The petitioner, Union of India, argued that the respondent neither joined his duty at the new station nor applied for leave, and justified the withholding of pay on the principle of “no word no pay”.

In response, Chakraborthy filed a fresh plea seeking his arrears salary with 12 per cent interest, contending that the department was in violation of the stay order.

‘No official order debarring from joining duty’

• Because of the respondent’s voluntary acceptance of his transfer to Silchar, the original application pending before the tribunal became infructuous.
• The tribunal, however, decided and directed payment of salary to the respondent as he was not allowed to join his duty, and therefore, his absence from work was not because of the respondent’s absence of the respondent.
• There is nothing on record to indicate that any such official order was issued by the department debarring the respondent from joining duty at Silchar, which, otherwise, would have been challenged by the respondent.
• In that case, the respondent ought not to have been given a choice posting at Silchar on his request.

Other court’s rulings

Directing the payment of regular salary to a clerk, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that non-payment of salary for work taken from an employee violates Article 21 of the Constitution and amounts to exploitation.

Justice Irshad Ali made the observation while dealing with a plea which alleged that despite rendering continuous service to the employer, no payment was made to the clerk.

“Where the employer has taken work from an employee for long years, the State cannot deny salary on hyper-technical grounds. Non-payment of salary for work taken is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to exploitation,” the Allahabad High Court noted in its order dated April 23.

The Orissa High Court recently held that pension is not a “bounty” but a “constitutional guarantee” and retirement benefits are “property” under the right to property, while directing the government to pay 12 per cent interest to a retired employee for over seven years’ delay in releasing his terminal benefits.

Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash were hearing the plea of a retired employee, Debabrata Ray, and found that he had suffered a lot to hold his body and soul together without a pension.

Ray challenged the Cuttack Central Administrative Tribunal’s order of February 24, 2026, that denied him interest on the delayed payment of terminal benefits and the cost of litigation, which he was compelled to fight for years.

“Pension is no longer a bounty, but a constitutional guarantee; pension is defined under Article 366(17) of the Constitution of India, as a consideration for the past services rendered by the employee. Further, the terminal benefits constitute property of the retiree and therefore, are protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India (right to property),” the April 22 order read.