Orissa High Court
Harihar Bindhani vs State Of Odisha & Others .... ... on 8 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.19969 OF 2023
Harihar Bindhani .... Petitioner
Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp.Parties
Mr. D. Lenka, AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
ORDER
Order No. 08.09.2025
07.
The services of the Petitioner were engaged by OP No.4 as a
Lecturer to teach and instruct in Yoga on part-time basis, vide order
dated 10.05.1990, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-1 and he
relentlessly worked as such till 31.05.2018 and demitted office on
attaining the age of superannuation. He is grieving before the Writ Court
for non-payment of remuneration admissible to the work in question on a
normative basis for all these years.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that extracting work
from a citizen without payment of remuneration for almost about three
decades is a gross violation of the doctrine against begar enacted in
Article 23 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he
presses into service the Apex Court decision in State of Gujarat v.
Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, (1998) 2 SCC 799. He also brings to
the notice of the Court that he was before this Court twice; one in
W.P.(C) No.10019 of 2003 decided on 31.03.2003 and another in
W.P.(C) No.13751 of 2020 disposed off on 13.07.2020, wherein he had
sought for an order for regularization of his services. The authority
concerned vide order dated 09.05.2023 has rejected case of the
Petitioner.
3. Learned AGA-Mr. Lenka appearing for the official OPs
vehemently resists the petition contending that the Petitioner was
working is true; however, it was a part-time job and that there was no
post against which he was appointed; that being the position, working
against no post would not oblige payment of remuneration. So
contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petitions.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the
matter as under and for the following reasons:
4.1. It is not in dispute that during the period between 10.05.1990 and
31.05.2018, Petitioner had worked as part-time Lecturer in Yoga and
discharged his duties. Whether there was a post or not, pales into
insignificance, once the work is extracted from a citizen. Article 23(1)
enacts the doctrine against begar which prohibits extraction of work sans
payment of wages. This view gains support from the decision in State of
Gujurat supra. H.M. Seervai in his 'Constitutional Law of India'
Edition-IV, describes 'begar' as under:
""begar" as a system where officers and Zamindars
(landlords) would compel people to carry their goods
without pay, a form of forced labor prohibited by Article
23 of the Constitution of India. This practice involved
compelling individuals to provide labor or service
without remuneration, which is now considered a form of
forced labor."
4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in telling the Court that
the official OPs are not justified in not paying the remuneration for the
work done by his client for about 28 years. Regularization is concerned,
in the absence of the post and full time work, ordinarily prayer may not
be granted. However, denial of regularization is one thing and refusal to
pay for the work done is another. It is the latter which Constitution
proscribes vide Article 23.
4.3. Twice the Petitioner was before this Court vide W.P.(C)
No.10019 of 2003 disposed off by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on
31.10.2003, directing consideration of the case for regularization. That
did not yield any result. He had filed W.P.(C) No.13751 of 2020, which
another Coordinate Bench disposed off on 13.07.2020 almost with the
similar direction. It is pursuant to this judgment, the OP No.1 has passed
the impugned order dated 09.05.2023, a copy whereof avails at
Annexure-14, so far as prayer for regularization is concerned, that
appears to be rightly denied by the impugned order. However, on what
justification the accumulated remuneration of the Petitioner over the
decades has been withheld, remains a mystery wrapped in enigma. There
is absolutely no justification for retaining the wages by the employer,
inasmuch as wages constitute property of the employee and therefore, the
action can be likened to the appropriation of citizens' property sans
compensation, which is violative of Article 300 A of the Constitution.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed in part. A
Writ of Mandamus issues to the OPs to pay to the Petitioner
wage/remuneration that has accrued and accumulated during the period
of 10.05.1990 and 31.05.2018 within an outer limit of eight weeks with
interest at the rate of 1% per mensem from the beginning. If delay is
brooked, that would carry 2% interest per mensem which component
may be recovered from the erring officials of the State Government.
The OPs are directed to pay a cost of Rs.28,000/-(rupees twenty
eight thousand) only to the Petitioner, who was made to hover in the
Court corridors for all these years with the three petitions. Cost to be paid
within four weeks, failing which for each day's delay Rs.250/- be added
to it till actual payment is made. Cost component may be recovered from
the airing officials.
Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
Madhusmita
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
