Employer cannot withhold salary of working employees absent disciplinary proceedings or specific adverse orders.

The Petitioner-Association represents teachers of Uttarakhand Ayurved University.

Thirty-one members, who were regular appointees and became University employees following a Government Order dated 3rd October 2015, alleged they were not paid salaries starting from March 2025 despite continuous service.

No termination orders or disciplinary proceedings were pending against these members.

The dispute stemmed from deliberations regarding the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and potential recoveries for alleged past illegal extensions of benefits.

Pursuant to interim court orders, the State released Rs. 618 lakhs to cover six months of salary arrears based on an Executive Council resolution dated 9th December 2025.

1. Whether the University can legally withhold the monthly salary of teachers who are regularly working in the absence of termination or disciplinary proceedings.

2. Whether the State is required to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before effecting recoveries of alleged wrongful payments.

The Court applied the principle that an employer cannot arbitrarily withhold the salary of employees who are actively performing their duties without an adverse legal order.

It further relied on the principles of Natural Justice, mandating that any recovery of amounts allegedly paid in error can only be effected after serving due notice and providing the concerned employee an opportunity for a hearing.

The Court observed that the teachers were currently in service and the State had already complied with interim directions to pay six months of arrears.

The State counsel conceded that the University cannot withhold salary without cause and that recovery actions require due process.

The Court reasoned that since there were no pending disciplinary proceedings or termination orders, there was no legal justification to stop month-to-month salary payments.

While acknowledging the State's right to investigate the legality of CAS benefits through its internal committee, the Court determined that such administrative exercises must not interfere with the disbursement of regular wages for work performed.

The Court held that the State is at liberty to issue individual notices to members if it seeks to recover any alleged wrongful payments, ensuring the right to a hearing.

Finally, it clarified that the University’s committee for regularization and document verification may continue its proceedings independently of this judgment.