Court highlights violation of fundamental rights due to prolonged non-payment of salaries; directs Joint Director of Education to file compliance affidavit and prioritizes employees' petitions and contempt cases
In a significant judgment dated July 27, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe) addressed a batch of writ and contempt petitions filed by teaching and non-teaching employees against the Sinhgad Technical Education Society (STES), over the prolonged non-payment of salaries. The Court underscored that non-payment of salaries directly affects the livelihood of employees and constitutes a breach of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice Any Profession or to Carry on Any Occupation) of the Constitution of India.
The petitions pertain to 772 former employees of STES who have either resigned or been terminated, with salary dues amounting to approximately Rs. 21 crore. Senior counsel for the petitioners presented a list of 19 writ petitions and companion contempt petitions highlighting the issue. The Court accepted the statement made on instructions by STES's counsel Mr. Suresh Pakale that the dues to these employees would be paid by August 31, 2026, and directed the contemnor (STES and its founders) to file a formal undertaking on affidavit confirming this commitment before the next hearing. The contemnor was also directed to remain personally present in Court.
The Court prioritized hearing petitions of employees currently in service who have not been paid salaries for over 22 months. It directed the Joint Director of Education, appointed by a coordinate Bench in an earlier order dated July 17, 2025, to file a detailed affidavit by August 3, 2026, explaining compliance with Court orders related to reimbursement issues and the status of outstanding amounts from the State Government towards tuition fees of reserved category students admitted to STES institutions. The Court expressed serious concern over alleged non-cooperation by STES with the Joint Director's inquiries and stressed that no further extension would be granted for filing the affidavit.
The Court also permitted the petitioners to file an updated compilation of Court orders and a detailed statement of amounts due to each employee, including the date from which the dues accrued and the amounts recognized by the Court-appointed committee. The advocates representing STES and the employees were directed to cooperate in preparing consolidated statements to facilitate speedy resolution.
Notably, the Court observed that the petitions filed by STES against the State Government regarding reimbursement of fees would be considered only after examining the employees' petitions and contempt proceedings. If it is found that payment of salaries is unrelated to State reimbursements, the Court would independently adjudicate the employees' claims without delay.
The Court lamented the grave consequences of the salary non-payment, noting submissions that some employees, including Class IV staff, had committed suicide due to financial distress. It emphasized that such non-payment is exploitative and violates constitutional rights, and that no educational institution should operate in a manner prejudicial to its employees.
In an interim relief, the Court directed that in one writ petition where the petitioner was in precarious financial condition, the management should consider releasing part of the salary within two days.
The Court committed to hearing these matters on a day-to-day basis from August 5, 2026, to bring a speedy end to the issue, underscoring that employees should not have to struggle in Court to secure their basic livelihoods.
This judgment marks a strong judicial intervention to uphold the rights of employees in educational institutions and sets a precedent emphasizing accountability and timely payment of salaries.
Bottom Line:
Non-payment of salary to teaching and non-teaching employees of an educational institution for a long period directly affects livelihood and amounts to breach of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 read with Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; in pending contempt matters, undertaking to pay dues to 772 former employees by 31-8-2026 directed to be filed on affidavit, and Joint Director of Education directed to file detailed affidavit on compliance of earlier court orders.
Statutory provision(s):
Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 215 of the Constitution of India; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Sunetra Rajendra Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998028
