A single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Aabid Hussain Peer, a Paravet engaged under the Animal Husbandry Department, whose engagement was cancelled following an adverse CID report regarding his character and antecedents.
Advocate Umiya Zehra, appearing for the petitioner on behalf of Advocate Mir Majid Bashir, submitted that the challenge was confined to the non-payment of wages for the period the petitioner had actually worked. The respondents were represented by Additional Advocate General Alla-ud-din Ganaie and Advocate Urba Naseer, appearing on behalf of Senior Advocate M.Y. Bhat.
The court noted that the appointment order had made the engagement subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents by the CID and observed that cancellation of the engagement on the basis of an adverse report could not be faulted.
However, the bench held that the State could not withhold wages for services already rendered. It observed that once a person has worked, denial of remuneration would amount to extracting labour without payment, offending the constitutional protection against forced labour under Article 23.
The court also noted that despite being granted a final opportunity, the respondents failed to file a counter-affidavit, resulting in closure of their right to place a response on record.
Disposing of the petition, the court directed the concerned authorities to release the petitioner’s unpaid wages for the period he had actually worked within two months from the date a copy of the order is served upon them.
