The Odisha High Court recently passed an order in favour of a state government employee whose salary was withheld for more than three years due to a pending disciplinary case. The judgement came in a case filed by Mr Bhainsa from Maneswar, Sambalpur.
Mr Bhainsa had not been paid his salary since November 2022 after his employer initiated disciplinary proceedings. However, the proceedings remained inconclusive for more than three years.
He approached the Orissa High Court, seeking release of his salary. Both the Odisha Higher Education Department and Sambalpur sub-collector opposed Bhainsa’s plea before the court.
Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash of the Odisha High Court heard the case on June 22, 2026, and passed the verdict in Bhainsa’s favour on the same day by directing the Odisha state government to pay his salary.
The Orissa High Court said that under Article 21, the right to life is guaranteed and is not limited to mere physical existence of a person or their ability to use limbs to enjoy life. It also encompasses the right to live with basic human dignity.
Related: Smallcap index better placed than Nifty, says Shah
The court ruled that the state government cannot deny these invaluable rights, as any procedure that infringes upon such rights and benefits cannot be considered reasonable, fair, and just, as established by the Supreme Court in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746.
In the case at hand, the Respondent-employee’s salary that has accrued due since November 2022 has not been credited to him, and that falls foul of the right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution as enunciated in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
In Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1983 SC 328, it is observed that: “Whenever any labour or service is taken by the state from any person, …the state must pay, at the least, minimum wage to such person on pain of violation of Article 23…”.
The Orissa High Court also cited a Karnataka High Court judgement (Sri Srinivasa v. The Deputy Commissioner, 2020:KHC: 12415), which reiterates what has been held in the State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat; AIR 1998 SC 3164 case.
They said: “That is the underlying philosophy of Article 23 of our Constitution. Thus, the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, regardless of arguable infirmity, does not warrant interference of this court.”
Related: World Cup 2026 Latest Match Updates
For Mr Bhainsa, the court’s decision means he will finally receive his salary after more than three years, allowing him to support himself and his family with dignity, which is a fundamental right as per the Constitution.
The high court order stated: “In the above circumstances, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be rejected, and accordingly, it is. The order of the learned single judge shall be complied with within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks.”
Nothing stated herein above shall cast a shadow on the pending case wherein the respondent-employee is said to have called in question the disciplinary proceedings.
The court placed on record its deep appreciation for the able research and assistance rendered by its official law clerk-cum-research assistant Mr. Mohammed Nihad Sharief.
It is a significant decision.
