Serial No. 45 Suppl Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR ******* WP(C) 1223/2022 CM(1159/2026) CM(3014/2022). SUHAIL MAQBOOL. …Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Mir Manzoor, Advocate. VERSUS UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. Through: Mr. M. Younis Hafeez, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, Government Advocate. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 14-07-2026 01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, is seeking a direction upon the respondents to release his legitimately earned salary in his favour. 02. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Rehbar-e-Khel Vide Order No. DG-YSS/Estt/10208 dated 1st of February 2019 and, vide Order dated 28th of February 2019, was posted at UPS Panner. 03. It has been further submitted that, as per the report of the Central Investigation Department (CID), the petitioner is involved in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 63/2015 for the commission of an offence under Section 489 RPC, registered at Police Station Tral. Though the petitioner has been working with the respondents since the year 2019, yet the respondents have not released his salary. 04. The respondents have filed their reply to the Writ petition and have also placed on record a status report pursuant to the directions dated 24th of February 2025 passed by this Court. In the status report as well as in the objections filed by the respondents, it has been submitted that the petitioner is still working with the respondents. However, the respondents have taken a stand that, because of the pendency of the challan arising out of the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner, his salary has been withheld. It has further been submitted that, as per the terms and conditions of the engagement of the petitioner, his engagement is liable to be terminated in case any adverse report with regard to his character antecedents is received from the police authorities. Thus, according to the respondents, the engagement of the petitioner is liable to be terminated. 05. Heard and considered. 06. It is an admitted case of the parties that, upon verification of the character antecedents of the petitioner, he was found to be involved in a criminal case arising out of the FIR No. 63/2015. It is also admitted case of the parties that, despite the respondents coming to know about the pendency of the said criminal case against the petitioner, they have allowed him to continue in service, even though there is no interim order passed by this Court restraining the respondents from disengaging the services of the petitioner. 07. The stand of the respondents that the engagement of the petitioner is liable to be terminated because of his involvement in the criminal case is not material for deciding the issue at hand, because it is not the case of the respondents that they have taken any action against the petitioner till date. Once it is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner is working with them, they cannot deny him his legitimately earned salary. Denying the salary of the petitioner after extracting work from his would amount to a violation of his right guaranteed under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. It is legally impermissible for the respondents to extract work from the petitioner without paying wages for the same, as such an action amounts to begar,(forced labour) which is prohibited. 09. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the outstanding wages/remuneration of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is made available to them, failing which the outstanding wages/remuneration shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of its realization. 10. Disposed of along with connected CMs. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 14-07-2026 Showkat Khan