Synopsis

Teachers and non‑teaching staff of private aided schools in Nagpur region filed multiple writ petitions challenging the abrupt stoppage of their salary from March 2025 without any prior order or show cause notice. The State initiated an inquiry into alleged irregularities in grant of approvals and issuance of Shalarth IDs (a digital payment system for government grants). The petitioners contended that they were appointed after following due procedure, their approvals were granted years ago, and they had been receiving salary continuously. The stoppage of salary without notice, without any allegation of fraud against them, and while they continued to discharge duties (including election and census duties), amounted to violation of Articles 14, 21 and 23 (begar). The High Court quashed the vague show cause notices and subsequent cancellation orders, restored the approvals and Shalarth IDs, directed release of withheld salary, and permitted the authorities to issue fresh notices only if specific fraud is alleged against the employees, with proper opportunity of hearing.

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 (arbitrariness), Article 21 (right to life including livelihood), Article 23 (prohibition of begar/unpaid labour)

• Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 – Section 5 (appointment procedure), Section 9 (appeal to Tribunal)

• Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 – Rules 8, 9

• Government Resolutions (GRs) – dated 07.11.2012 (Shalarth Portal scheme), 06.02.2012 (recruitment guidelines), 23.08.2017 (cancellation of approval procedure), 28.02.2018 (Special Action Committee), 20.03.2019 (dissolution of Committee), 10.06.2022 (detailed procedure for approval and Shalarth inclusion)

Key legal principles applied

Stoppage of salary without order violates natural justice: Withholding salary is a punitive action that affects the livelihood of an employee. It cannot be done without issuing a show cause notice, affording an opportunity of hearing, and passing a reasoned order. The action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Vague show cause notice is no notice: A show cause notice must contain specific allegations to enable the noticee to respond. A cyclostyled notice calling upon employees to show cause why approval should not be cancelled, without mentioning any particular irregularity or fraud, is insufficient and vitiates the entire proceeding.

Hearing must be meaningful, not a farce: Conducting a hearing where 150 employees are called on a single day and asked only to fill a pre‑formatted form, without being heard orally, is not a proper hearing. It violates principles of natural justice.

Employees cannot be penalized for irregularities of the management: If the management has violated recruitment rules (e.g., roster, prior permission), the employees who were bona fide appointees and have served for many years cannot be made to suffer. Approval orders can be cancelled only if fraud or misrepresentation is proved against the employee personally.

Long passage of time without objection raises presumption of regularity: When approvals were granted years ago and the employee has rendered service for 10‑15 years without any objection, the authorities cannot suddenly cancel approvals on technical grounds without cogent evidence of fraud.

Begar under Article 23 includes unpaid labour exacted by the State: The State cannot compel employees to work (including election duty, cens

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.