Ab-initio cancellation of engagement cannot defeat wages for services actually rendered.

The petitioner was provisionally engaged as a Stipendiary Senior Resident in the Department of Anesthesia, SKIMS, Soura, for one year under Government Order No. SIMS/ACAD/538 of 2023. She claimed that she discharged her duties for the entire tenure but was paid salary for only one month, leaving eleven months’ remuneration unpaid. She also sought an experience certificate and refund of an alleged security deposit of ₹55,000.

The respondents contended that the engagement was conditional and subject to satisfactory character and antecedent verification. The petitioner had furnished an affidavit agreeing that, in the event of an adverse CID report, she would have no claim to engagement and her appointment could be cancelled ab initio. Following receipt of an adverse report, the respondents cancelled her engagement ab initio by order dated 17 July 2025. The petitioner did not challenge that cancellation order.

During the proceedings, the petitioner did not press the claim for refund of the alleged security deposit due to the absence of documentary proof.

Whether the petitioner could claim recognition or continuation of her provisional engagement despite the contractual condition permitting cancellation ab initio upon receipt of an adverse character or antecedent report, particularly when the cancellation order was not challenged?

Whether the respondents could withhold salary or wages for the period during which the petitioner had actually discharged her duties, notwithstanding the subsequent cancellation of her engagement ab initio?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to an experience certificate recording the period of actual service rendered by her?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the alleged security deposit of ₹55,000?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and applied the principle that a temporary or contractual engagement is governed by its accepted terms and conditions, and that a person cannot ordinarily seek enforcement contrary to those terms.

Relying on Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293, the Court held that contractual rights must be determined with reference to the contract and that courts cannot rewrite its terms.

It also relied on State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi, (2006) 1 SCC 667, for the principle that a temporary or ad hoc appointee has no indefeasible right to continuation contrary to the governing conditions.

However, the Court held that withholding remuneration for work actually performed would offend Article 23 of the Constitution, and that a contractual condition or undertaking cannot validly operate to deprive a person of earned wages for services rendered.

The Court held that the petitioner had accepted a provisional and conditional engagement and had expressly undertaken not to claim engagement if an adverse character report was received. Since the subsequent cancellation order dated 17 July 2025 had not been challenged, the Court could not grant relief that would effectively invalidate or nullify that order; consequently, it declined to recognise any continuing or valid engagement contrary to the contractual terms.

However, the Court distinguished the petitioner’s claim to unpaid wages from a claim to continuation in service. Cancellation of the engagement did not extinguish the petitioner’s entitlement to remuneration for duties actually performed. Denial of such earned wages would violate Article 23, irrespective of the cancellation clause or the affidavit furnished by the petitioner.

Similarly, although the petitioner could not seek an experience certificate implying the validity of her engagement after cancellation, the respondents could be directed to issue a factual certificate limited to the period during which official records established that she had actually worked.

The security-deposit claim was not adjudicated because the petitioner withdrew it in the absence of documentary evidence.

Without disturbing the cancellation order dated 17 July 2025, the Court directed the respondents to verify and release the petitioner’s legitimately unpaid salary or wages for the period during which she actually worked, preferably within eight weeks of service of the order.

In default, the outstanding amount would carry simple interest at 6% per annum from 15 April 2026, the date of filing of the petition, until realization.

The respondents were further directed to consider issuing a factual certificate recording only the period for which the petitioner actually rendered services, without certifying any period after the cancellation order.

The claim for refund of ₹55,000 was not pressed, and the petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.