Teachers’ salaries cannot be withheld for refusing to enroll in the National Pension Scheme.

The Petitioners were primary teachers employed in a school administered by Respondent No. 1, Panchayat Samiti Dahanu.

Pursuant to a letter dated 21 July 2022 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, salaries of teachers who had not registered for or opened accounts under the National Pension Scheme (“NPS”) were directed to be withheld.

Respondent No. 1 accordingly issued a letter dated 25 July 2022 directing that the Petitioners’ salaries be stopped.

The Petitioners objected to the compulsory implementation of NPS and requested that their salaries not be withheld. Their salaries were nevertheless stopped from July 2022 without notice.

During the proceedings, the authorities disbursed the salaries but deducted 10% and credited it to NPS accounts that the Petitioners had allegedly been coerced into opening.

Whether the Respondents could compulsorily require the Petitioners to register under or contribute to the NPS as a condition for payment of their salaries.

Whether the Respondents’ withholding of the Petitioners’ salaries for refusing to open NPS accounts was lawful, particularly in view of the Government communication prohibiting such withholding.

Whether the Petitioners were entitled to payment of the withheld salaries with interest and other consequential reliefs.

The Court applied Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that the right to livelihood forms an integral part of the right to life and cannot be arbitrarily denied by public authorities.

It relied on the Government Order dated 19 September 2019, which introduced NPS for teaching and non-teaching staff but did not make its application compulsory or authorise withholding of salaries from employees who declined to join it.

The Court also relied on the Commissioner of Education’s communication dated 22 December 2021, which directed that teachers and staff should not be compelled to close their General Provident Fund accounts and open NPS accounts, and that their salaries should neither be withheld nor deducted for that reason.

The governing principle was that an employer or public authority cannot withhold remuneration for services duly rendered, particularly in an arbitrary manner and contrary to its own administrative instructions.

The Court found that the 19 September 2019 Government Order did not impose a mandatory NPS obligation and contained no provision authorising salary stoppage for non-enrolment.

This conclusion was reinforced by the Commissioner of Education’s express direction that employees should not be forced to shift from GPF to NPS and that their salaries should not be withheld or deducted.

Despite these instructions, the Respondents withheld the Petitioners’ salaries while continuing to accept their teaching services.

The Court held that such conduct amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power and impermissible deprivation of livelihood under Article 21.

The subsequent payment of only part of the salary, accompanied by a 10% NPS deduction, did not cure the original illegality or the continuing shortfall.

The Respondents were directed to disburse the outstanding salary amounts within ten days from the date of uploading of the judgment.

They were further directed to pay interest at 12% per annum on the amounts withheld from July 2022 until the dates on which the payments were made.

The authorities were given liberty to recover the interest amount from the salaries of the officers who had directed or permitted the withholding of the Petitioners’ salaries.

The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.