INTRODUCTION
The Rajasthan High Court in its judgment has laid down that a suspended government employee must be paid throughout the period of suspension on reinstatement, where the suspension was found to be invalid. This principle deserves reinforcement, particularly where suspension is mere administrative action, and not a measure meant to punish the employee.
BACKGROUND
This case came up when an employee of the government challenged the non – payment of arrears salary for the time of suspension after reinstatement. The employee stated that the suspension was unjustified and since there was no charge of misconduct made against him, full salary should be paid for the period of suspension.
On the other hand, the state government countered that the subsistence allowance for this period suffices and therefore he shall not be entitled to further arrears. But this whole issue raised the larger question how administrative discretion is to be balanced with the rights of employees on financial and procedural aspects.
KEY POINTS
- Right to Livelihood: Denial of arrears after reinstatement affects an employee’s right to livelihood, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- No Punishment without Inquiry: Suspension cannot be treated as punitive unless it is accompanied by disciplinary action leading to a finding of misconduct against an employee. Therefore, entitlement to dues cannot be curtailed.
- Relevant Case Laws: The court cited the preceding judgments of the Supreme Court and other high courts to the effect that an employee is entitled to arrears in the event the suspension is held to be invalid.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Rajasthan High Court has provided that, in case an employee under suspension is subsequently reinstated, he is entitled to payment of full arrears for the period of suspension, if the suspension is found to be unjustified. The court observed that suspension is not a punitive action but merely an administrative step to facilitate an impartial inquiry. The court also stated that if, on a later review, the suspension turns out to be unwarranted, the officials should not create any financial loss for the employees. Not paying arrears in such cases violates the principles of natural justice, as emphasized by the court, and also affects the constitutional right of an employee to livelihood under Article 21. The judgment also clarified that unless the suspension period is explicitly treated as “non-duty” with valid legal reasoning, the employee is entitled to arrears. It also warned authorities against arbitrary or prolonged suspensions and insisted that fairness and accountability in administrative action should ensure that employees are not punished wrongly. In this judgment, rights of employees have won in the field and will also reduce misuse of suspension for a better public sector employment policy.
CONCLUSION
The judgment from the Rajasthan High Court addresses the discretion given to the administration in the area of employee rights. This further establishes the principle behind approaching suspension and reinstatement proceedings fairly and justly so that employees are not left disadvantaged in the payment for work that they have properly performed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: SHAKCHI VERMA
