Court Rules in Favor of Professor's Unpaid Salary Claim.


09 October 2024 Unpaid salary/bonus/gratuity >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

In a recent ruling of Dr. Vilas Gangadhar Mamde v/s The State of Maharashtra & Others, the court addressed the case of a retired Assistant Professor seeking unpaid salary due to delays related to a change in the retirement age. The petitioner, who joined service on August 14, 1982, was initially set to retire at the age of 60 on July 31, 2014. However, a circular issued on October 9, 2014, extended the retirement age for professors in the state from 60 to 62 years, allowing him to continue working until July 31, 2016.

The petitioner argued that he could not resume his duties until the extension was confirmed on October 9, 2014, and thus sought compensation for the period from August 1 to October 9, 2014, during which he was effectively unable to work.

 
 

The state’s representative opposed the claim, invoking the principle of "no work, no wages." They emphasized that the extension was only applicable after the circular was issued, and the petitioner had received his extension in accordance with this order.


The petitioner cited a precedent from a similar case (Laxman Ragho Raundal Vs. State of Maharashtra), where the court had previously ruled that employees are entitled to their salary for the period they were not allowed to work, following the issuance of a circular extending their retirement age. The court's earlier judgment ordered the payment of unpaid salaries for that interim period.

After considering the arguments, the court agreed that the petitioner was entitled to unpaid salary for the specified duration. However, the request for interest on this amount was denied, as the petitioner did not insist on it during the proceedings.

Ultimately, the court directed the relevant authorities to process the salary payment for the period in question within 90 days. It also noted that any potential implementation of the Model Code of Conduct by the state government would not hinder the execution of this order. The ruling underscores the importance of timely communication and adherence to regulatory changes in employment, particularly within educational institutions.