“An employee’s right to receive salary cannot be withheld or reduced except on the basis of a proper enquiry,” the Supreme Court held while directing the immediate release of full salary and arrears to a railway employee whose pay had been curtailed during medical treatment without any disciplinary proceedings.
Case Details
- Case Title: Anurag Sharma v. General Manager, North Central Railways, Prayagraj & Ors.
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Date of Judgment: November 24, 2025
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 29215 of 2025)
Accident During Duty and Medical Treatment
The appellant, Anurag Sharma, was appointed as an Assistant Loco Pilot in the Indian Railways on November 22, 2013, and was later posted to the North Central Railway, Jhansi Division.
On April 13, 2023, while discharging official duties, he met with an accident while descending the stairs of a railway bridge, sustaining fracture injuries to his right knee.
He was initially admitted to the Railway Hospital, Jhansi, and later referred to Sarvodhya Hospital, Faridabad, where ligament surgery was performed on June 20, 2023.
He was subsequently admitted on December 31, 2023 to the Central Hospital, North Central Railway, Prayagraj, for further treatment.
Medical Advice Ignored by Authorities
Upon examination, the Senior Divisional Medical Officer (Orthopaedics) advised that a Medical Board be constituted to assess the appellant’s medical fitness and that he be considered for Alternate Employment on Medical Grounds, with light duties in the interim.
Despite this clear medical advice, no Medical Board was constituted. Instead, a fitness certificate dated April 27, 2024 was issued declaring the appellant fit for duty, without compliance with the recommendation for Medical Board evaluation.
The appellant’s medical difficulties persisted. On July 25, 2024, he was again admitted to the hospital due to continued knee pain.
A sick certificate dated July 29, 2024 was issued, “clearly indicating the continuation of his medical condition,” which effectively negated the earlier fitness certificate.
Even thereafter, the railway authorities neither constituted a Medical Board nor assigned light duties.
Salary Reduced and Then Completely Withheld
During this period of continuing treatment, the appellant’s salary was reduced to half pay from January 2024 to June 2024.
From July 2024 onwards, his salary was completely stopped, despite the absence of any disciplinary action or enquiry and while he remained under medical care.
The stoppage of salary caused serious financial distress to the appellant.
Proceedings Before the Tribunal and High Court
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, by filing Original Application No. 1188 of 2024.
The Tribunal disposed of the application by directing the authorities to constitute a Medical Board to examine his fitness and, if found unfit, to consider him for alternate employment under the applicable rules.
The appellant thereafter approached the Allahabad High Court by filing Writ-A No. 4652 of 2025. The High Court directed that the appellant be examined by a Medical Board at the Howrah Orthopaedic Hospital.
The issue of reduction and withholding of salary, however, remained unaddressed.
Supreme Court on Salary Withholding
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant specifically raised the issue of salary reduction and complete stoppage without any enquiry.
The Court noted that the respondents failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for withholding the appellant’s salary.
In a clear and categorical observation, the Bench held that
“an employee’s right to receive salary cannot be withheld or reduced except on the basis of a proper enquiry conducted in accordance with applicable rules.”
The Court further recorded that
“in the absence of any such enquiry or finding of misconduct, denial of salary would be illegal and arbitrary.”
It also noted that
“nothing has been brought on record to establish that any enquiry was conducted before withholding the appellant’s salary.”
Direction for the Medical Board at AIIMS, Lucknow
On the issue of medical examination, the Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s submission that examination at AIIMS, Lucknow would be more convenient.
The Court observed that AIIMS, Lucknow, being a premier institution with multidisciplinary expertise, had the requisite facilities to conduct the examination.
It clarified that this direction should not be construed as casting any aspersion on the expertise or facilities of the Howrah Orthopaedic Hospital or other railway hospitals.
Final Directions of the Court
The Supreme Court directed that a Medical Board be constituted by AIIMS, Lucknow within three weeks to assess whether the appellant was fit for Category ‘A’ duties, could be assigned light or desk duties, or was eligible for Alternate Employment on Medical Grounds.
The respondents were directed to make all necessary arrangements for the appellant’s travel and accommodation.
Crucially, the Court ordered the respondents to
“immediately release the appellant’s full salary with effect from January 2024 onwards, including all arrears and allowances,”
within two weeks from the receipt of the order, if not already paid.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
Anurag Sharma v. General Manager, North Central Railways, Prayagraj & Ors.
