Authorities must adjudicate the retired contractual employee’s wage claim through a reasoned order after hearing.

The petitioner, who had completed 33 years, 4 months and 6 days of service as a Special Attendant at the Provincial Veterinary Dispensary, Aurangabad, was recommended for post-retirement contractual engagement due to staff shortage.

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad appointed him on a contractual basis from 1 December 2024 to 30 November 2026 by order dated 30 November 2024.

Subsequently, the Additional Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Resources Department, directed cancellation of the appointment on the ground that the Director, Animal Husbandry was the appointing authority for the Attendant cadre and the requisite approval had not been obtained.

The petitioner’s appointment was consequently terminated with immediate effect by the Veterinary Surgeon, Aurangabad.

He thereafter submitted representations seeking payment of salary/wages for the period from 1 December 2024 to 23 July 2025, along with consequential benefits.

The writ petition sought release of the claimed salary/wages; during hearing, the petitioner requested that the competent authorities be directed to decide his pending representation.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of salary/wages for the contractual service allegedly rendered from 1 December 2024 to 23 July 2025.

Whether the Additional Secretary and the Director, Animal Husbandry should be directed to adjudicate the petitioner’s pending representation concerning payment of salary/wages and consequential benefits.

The Court applied the administrative-law principles that a representation concerning an asserted service or monetary claim must be considered by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order, after giving the affected person an opportunity of hearing.

The Court also recognised that the question of entitlement to payment, particularly where the validity of the contractual appointment was disputed for want of approval from the competent appointing authority, was required to be determined administratively by the concerned departmental authorities rather than conclusively decided in the writ petition at that stage.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s appointment had initially been made by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector but was later cancelled because the Director, Animal Husbandry was stated to be the competent appointing authority and prior approval had not been obtained.

Since the petitioner had already submitted representations seeking wages for the period during which he claimed to have rendered contractual service, and the entitlement involved factual and administrative determination, the Court declined to directly order payment.

Instead, it required the Additional Secretary and the Director, Animal Husbandry to examine the representation, provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

If the authorities concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the claimed relief, the payment or other relief was to be extended within four weeks of passing the decision.

The Court did not itself determine the petitioner’s entitlement to salary/wages, but granted liberty in accordance with the above directions.