In Brief
The appellant and three others were appointed as stenographers in a district court for eight years, though technically appointed in excess of advertised vacancies. Their services were validly terminated. The High Court dismissed their writ petition seeking salary payment on the ground that only a separate civil action before a Civil Court could grant such relief. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court should not take a hyper-technical view on the nature of proceedings. When an employee has actually worked and earned salary, and the facts are undisputed and decidable on affidavit evidence, the High Court can grant relief under Article 226. The State was directed to pay the withheld salary with 6% interest within three months, plus costs.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.