A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by former stenographers who had worked for about eight years in District Court (Fast Track Courts) but whose appointments were terminated as surplus. Earlier orders including dismissal of a Special Leave Petition had left open the question of recovery of unpaid salary by granting liberty to sue in an appropriate civil action.

The High Court later dismissed petitions for salary on the ground that writ jurisdiction could not substitute for a civil suit. The Supreme Court held that a hyper-technical approach was inappropriate under Article 226 where undisputed facts showed eight years’ service and where relief could be granted on affidavit evidence without prolonged trial. Relying on precedents that permit writ relief even when questions of fact exist but are amenable to summary adjudication (ABL International Ltd. and subsequent cases), the Court directed payment of salaries for the period actually worked with 6% interest and awarded costs of Rs.1,00,000.

The decision underscores the duty of courts and the State to be model litigants, avoids formalistic barriers to relief where factual position is clear, and clarifies that direction to pursue a civil remedy should not be used to deny substantive justice when the writ forum can decide the claim summarily. (Word count: ~190)

Keywords: Article 226, appropriate civil action, writ jurisdiction, salary for services rendered, model litigant, ABL International, hyper-technical view, Fast Track Courts, interest and costs.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The core dispute arises from appointment and termination of stenographers by the District Court, Saharanpur. The appellants were appointed on 16 April 2002 to work in Fast Track Courts although the sanctioned vacancies were fewer. Following cessation of Fast Track Court functioning, four additional appointees including the appellant were issued show-cause notices and on 28 February 2005 their services were terminated.

The appellants pursued remedy by writ before the High Court which dismissed their petition; subsequent intra-court appeal failed and a Special Leave Petition to this Court was dismissed on 21 September 2012. Significantly, while dismissing the SLP this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to claim payment of salary for the period they had worked by way of an appropriate civil action, expressly reserving opinion on maintainability and merits.

After representations to the District Judge seeking salary were rejected, the appellants filed fresh writ petitions which the High Court dismissed on the ground that the remedy for salary recovery was an appropriate civil action and the writ forum could not be used in place of civil proceedings. The High Court took a technical approach to the meaning of “civil action” and non-suited the appellants.

The present appeal challenged those orders on the twin grounds that the appellants had indisputably rendered service for about eight years and that the High Court should not have adopted a hyper-technical bar to deny relief where summary determination on affidavit record was possible. The Supreme Court heard counsel and examined precedent law permitting discretionary writ relief in appropriate fact situations and ultimately set aside the High Court orders, directing payment with interest and costs.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants responded to an advertisement by the District Court, Saharanpur for the post of Stenographer and assumed charge on 16 April 2002. Though only three sanctioned vacancies existed, additional appointments were made to staff Fast Track Courts. Four appointees, including the present appellant, were later found to be excess and issued show-cause notices; the District Judge terminated their services on 28 February 2005.

The appellants challenged termination by writ (Writ Petition No.43168 of 2005) which was dismissed on 17 May 2012; an intra-court appeal (Special Appeal No.1180 of 2012) was dismissed. The appellants filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) to this Court; the SLP was dismissed on 21 September 2012 but this Court granted liberty to claim payment of salary for the period worked in an appropriate civil action, expressly reserving any opinion on maintainability or tenability. Thereafter representations to the District Judge for salary recovery were rejected and fresh writ petitions (Writ Petition No.26698 of 2015) were filed; the High Court dismissed the petition (23 May 2018) and an intra-court appeal (Special Appeal Defective No.456 of 2019) was dismissed on 16 May 2019.

The High Court took the view that a writ court could not substitute for a civil court when the remedy indicated by this Court was an appropriate civil action and treated the appellants’ claim as non-justiciable in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court allowed appeal and directed payment of salaries for the period actually worked with 6% interest from the date salaries ought to have been paid, and awarded Rs.1,00,000 as costs for the litigational ordeal post-2012.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 may entertain and grant relief for recovery of salary where the factual position (period of service) is undisputed and can be resolved on affidavit evidence?
ii. Whether the direction in an earlier SLP to seek relief in an appropriate civil action operates as an absolute bar to seeking relief under writ jurisdiction?
iii. Whether the High Court’s refusal to grant relief on the ground that writ forum is not a civil court amounts to a hyper-technical denial of substantive justice?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the appellants had indisputably rendered service for approximately eight years and that the High Court’s refusal to entertain salary claims on writ jurisdiction was unjustified because the factual question was not complex and could be dealt with on affidavit. The appellants argued that this Court’s earlier dismissal of the SLP with liberty to sue in an appropriate civil action did not preclude the High Court from exercising discretionary writ jurisdiction where justice so required.

It was urged that insistence on a rigid distinction between writ and civil forums was hyper-technical and unfair to persons who had already been litigating for years and had been left unpaid despite actual service rendered. The appellants sought payment of salary, interest and costs to compensate for delay and multiplicity of litigation.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that this Court had specifically granted liberty to the appellants to pursue salary recovery by way of an appropriate civil action, thereby indicating that the civil forum was the proper remedy. The respondents argued that the appellants chose not to institute civil proceedings but instead pursued representations and fresh writ petitions, and that the High Court correctly applied principle that recovery of money is ordinarily a subject of civil suit.

Reliance was placed on finality of earlier orders and the need to prevent forum shopping. The High Court’s rejection was defended as conforming to the direction in the SLP dismissal.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction and scope of discretionary relief.
ii. Principles from precedents permitting writ relief when questions of fact are capable of summary determination (e.g., ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553).
iii. Doctrine of model litigant and public law obligations of State and courts to avoid hyper-technical denials of justice.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court analysed the procedural history and the earlier order in which the SLP dismissal had reserved liberty to seek salary recovery in an appropriate civil action. The Court emphasised that while the earlier direction suggested the civil forum, it could not be read as an absolute estoppel against relief in the writ forum where the facts were undisputed and summary adjudication on affidavit evidence was viable. Relying on ABL International and later authorities, the Court reiterated that even where questions of fact exist, Article 226 jurisdiction may be invoked where the factual disputes can be resolved without elaborate evidence and where justice demands immediate relief.

The Court criticised the High Court’s “hyper-technical” approach which mechanically treated the writ forum as incompetent to grant monetary relief simply because the phrase “appropriate civil action” had been used earlier. Observing that the appellants had worked for eight years a fact not in dispute the Court held that the High Court ought to have considered the claim on merits in writ jurisdiction and not non-suit the appellants on formal grounds.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders, directed respondents to pay salaries for the period actually worked with interest at 6% per annum from the date the salaries ought to have been paid, and awarded costs of Rs.1,00,000 for the hardship of prolonged litigation after 2012. The Court stressed expectations from the State and courts to act as model litigants and to avoid technicalities that deny substantive relief.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal principle is that Article 226 is a flexible equitable jurisdiction and may be exercised to grant monetary relief where the facts are clear or are capable of summary determination on affidavit and no elaborate trial is required. A prior judicial direction to seek remedy by an appropriate civil action does not bar subsequent exercise of writ jurisdiction if refusal would result in denial of justice on technical grounds.

The Court relied on ABL International Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553 and subsequent authorities to hold that writ relief can be appropriately granted in disputes involving questions of fact when suit proceedings are unnecessary for proper adjudication. The obligation of courts and the State to be model litigants and to avoid hyper-technical refusals of relief informed the outcome.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed obiter that the label of the forum should not defeat substantive rights and that courts must pragmatically consider whether evidence on record suffices for determination. The judgment emphasized that language in prior orders (liberty to sue in civil action) should not be mechanically enforced to deny relief if the court can do complete justice under Article 226.

The Court further commented on the duty of the State and lower courts to act fairly towards employees who have rendered services for long periods and to avoid forcing litigants into multiplicity of proceedings. These observations serve as guidance though not strictly necessary to the ratio.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Where factual disputes are limited and can be resolved on affidavit evidence, High Courts may exercise Article 226 jurisdiction to grant monetary relief without remitting parties to civil courts.
ii. Prior judicial directions to pursue civil remedies must be read contextually and should not operate as a formal bar if doing so results in injustice.
iii. Courts and the State should observe model litigant conduct: avoid hyper-technical pleas, facilitate summary justice where possible, and minimize multiplicity of litigation.
iv. When awarding monetary relief under writ jurisdiction, courts may include interest and costs to compensate delay and hardship caused by protracted litigation.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision reinforces a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach to Article 226 jurisdiction. It curtails rigid formalism that would bar relief merely because a prior order suggested a civil remedy, especially where the factual foundation (period of service and denial of salary) is undisputed and amenable to summary treatment. The judgment situates itself in a line of precedents beginning with ABL International and reaffirms the High Court’s remedial flexibility to prevent injustice.

For litigants in service-law disputes, the ruling is salutary: courts will look beyond labels of forum and focus on whether a fair, expeditious adjudication is possible. For the State and subordinate courts, the pronouncement is a reminder to act as model litigants and to process claims for wages with greater sensitivity, reducing avoidable litigation.

The award of interest and costs underlines the Court’s concern for compensatory justice where procedural delays and forum shuttling have caused prejudice. Practically, the case clarifies that instructions or reservations in earlier orders do not create procedural deadlocks; substance overrides form where the interests of justice so demand.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 553.
ii. Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Limited and Others, 2010 INSC 462 : [2010] 9 SCR 417 : (2010) 11 SCC 186.
iii. Real Estate Agencies v. State of Goa and Others, 2012 INSC 387 : [2012] 8 SCR 278 : (2012) 12 SCC 170.
iv. Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 INSC 183 : [2020] 3 SCR 789 : (2020) 19 SCC 241.
v. Unitech Limited and Others v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Others, 2021 INSC 96 : [2021] 1 SCR 1064 : (2021) 16 SCC 35.
vi. National Company represented by its Managing Partner v. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another, 2021 INSC 714 : [2021] 11 SCR 75 : (2021) 13 SCC 121.
vii. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Others, 2020 INSC 603 : [2020] 13 SCR 571 : (2021) 19 SCC 706.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Constitution of India, Article 226.