SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the authorities at Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), Soura, to release the legitimately unpaid wages of a doctor for the period she actually worked, holding that remuneration for services already rendered cannot be denied merely because her engagement was subsequently cancelled ab initio on the basis of an adverse CID report.
Justice M. A. Chowdhary, while partially allowing a petition filed by Dr Saima Kabir of Sogam in Kupwara, directed the respondents to release her earned wages for the period she had actually discharged her duties, preferably within eight weeks of being served with a copy of the order. In case of default, the amount will carry simple interest at six per cent per annum from April 15, 2026, the date on which the petition was filed, until realization.
The court also directed the authorities to consider issuing a factual certificate recording the period during which Dr Kabir actually rendered services, while making it clear that the certificate should not certify any period after the cancellation of her engagement on July 17, 2025.
The judgment was pronounced on September 25, 2026, in WP(C) No. 780/2026, which had been reserved for orders on September 22. Dr Kabir was represented by Advocate Ishfaq Bashir, while the respondents were represented by Government Advocate Faheem Nisar Shah.
Dr Kabir had approached the High Court seeking release of her pending salary along with interest, issuance of an experience certificate for the work performed by her, and refund of Rs 55,000 which she claimed to have deposited as security at the time of joining her duties.
According to her petition, she had been provisionally engaged as a Stipendiary Senior Resident in the Department of Anesthesia at SKIMS, Soura, through Government Order No. SIMS/ACAD/538 of 2023 dated September 31, 2023, for a period of one year. She claimed that she discharged her duties during the period of her engagement, but her contractual term was not extended in the manner it allegedly was for other similarly situated doctors.
The petitioner told the court that she was paid salary for only one month, amounting to Rs 1,27,772, on April 4, 2024, while payment for the remaining eleven months was withheld. She also claimed that the Rs 55,000 security amount deposited at the time of joining remained with the respondents after completion of her tenure.
The respondents, however, maintained that her appointment was purely provisional and conditional. One of the conditions of the engagement order stipulated that if an adverse report concerning her character or antecedents was received from the CID department, she would have no right to claim engagement and her engagement would be deemed to have been cancelled ab initio.
The authorities further stated that Dr Kabir had accepted the condition and furnished an affidavit undertaking that she would not claim any right to engagement in the event of an adverse character or antecedents report. An adverse report was subsequently received, following which the authorities issued Order No. SIMS/ACAD/35 of 2025 on July 17, 2025, cancelling her engagement ab initio. The respondents pointed out that Dr Kabir had not challenged that cancellation order in the present proceedings.
Advocate Ishfaq Bashir argued that irrespective of the adverse report, Dr Kabir had actually discharged her duties for the entire period and could not therefore be denied wages for services already rendered. He submitted that she had also made a written request to the authorities seeking release of her salary, but the request had not been considered.
The petitioner’s counsel further argued that Dr Kabir had performed her duties honestly and that the respondents were legally bound to pay her salary for the work she had actually undertaken. The petitioner also sought an experience certificate and refund of the security amount.
Government counsel, on the other hand, argued that the engagement was provisional and conditional and that Dr Kabir had consciously accepted the condition concerning an adverse CID report. The respondents also disputed the claim regarding the Rs 55,000 security deposit, saying there was no documentary evidence to establish that such an amount had been deposited.
The respondents further argued that since the July 17, 2025 cancellation order had not been challenged, Dr Kabir could not indirectly seek to nullify its consequences through the present petition.
The High Court agreed with the respondents to the extent that Dr Kabir’s engagement had been expressly made provisional and subject to the condition concerning character and antecedents verification. The court noted that she had not only accepted the engagement order but had also furnished an affidavit undertaking not to claim engagement if an adverse character report was received.
Justice Chowdhary observed that a person accepting an appointment subject to specified conditions cannot ordinarily seek enforcement of the appointment contrary to those conditions. Referring to Supreme Court judgments including Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil and State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi, the court said contractual and temporary engagements are governed by the terms under which they are made.
The court also noted that the July 17, 2025 cancellation order itself had not been challenged. “The validity of the said order is not directly in issue before this Court,” Justice Chowdhary said, adding that the court could not grant a relief which would, “in substance, nullify the effect” of that order without the order itself having been questioned.
However, the court drew a distinction between the validity of the cancellation and payment for services that had already been performed.
“The fact that the engagement was subsequently cancelled does not, by itself, answer the question whether salary had accrued in respect of services actually rendered before the cancellation,” the court observed.
The court went further, holding that denial of remuneration for the period during which Dr Kabir actually worked would violate Article 23 of the Constitution.
“Withholding and denial of payment of the remuneration for the period the petitioner had worked, would be violative of Article 23 of the Constitution of India,” the judgment said. It added that a condition in the engagement order seeking to disentitle an appointee to wages for the period actually worked was “in teeth of Article 23” and could not be enforced even on the basis of an undertaking furnished by the employee.
In reaching the conclusion, the court also relied upon an earlier judgment of a coordinate bench in WP(C) No. 2769/2025, which it said involved an identical factual background. Without disturbing the cancellation order of July 17, 2025, the court directed the authorities to verify Dr Kabir’s claim for unpaid salary and release the amount payable for the period during which she actually discharged her duties, in accordance with the terms of her engagement.
On the request for an experience certificate, the court declined to direct issuance of a certificate that could imply that Dr Kabir’s engagement remained valid despite its cancellation. It nevertheless held that if official records establish that she had actually discharged duties for a particular period, there was no justification for withholding a factual certificate recording that period of service.
As for the Rs 55,000 security deposit, the petitioner’s counsel, under instructions, did not press the relief after noting the absence of documentary proof and the respondents’ denial of the alleged deposit.
The court accordingly partially allowed the petition and disposed of the connected application.
