Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Grants Relief to Employee for Delayed Departmental Action: Financial Loss and Mental Agony Merit Just Compensation:  High Court of Karnataka

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment reinforcing the rights of employees under suspension, the High Court of Karnataka, presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, delivered a landmark verdict in Writ Petition No.16678 of 2018 (S-RES), favoring petitioner Sri T K Srinivasa.

The judgment, dated January 22, 2024, ruled in favor of the petitioner against the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), granting relief in the form of interest on delayed payment of salary and the difference in salary from the date of suspension.

Justice Magadum, in his observation, noted the unwarranted delay and the procedural lapses on the part of the respondent corporation. "The delay in initiating a departmental enquiry and further delay in payment of arrears of salary post enquiry Officer’s findings reflects a clear violation of petitioner’s right to timely compensation," Justice Magadum observed.

The petitioner, Sri T K Srinivasa, challenged the endorsement dated 05.08.2017, which declined his request for interest on the delayed payment of salary and difference of salary during his suspension period. The petition was filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court meticulously reviewed the sequence of events leading to the petitioner's prolonged suspension since 07.12.1998. The court emphasized the hardship and financial prejudice suffered by the petitioner due to the delay in initiating the departmental enquiry and subsequent payments after exoneration.

In a strong statement underlining the importance of fair treatment of employees, the Court declared, "The petitioner’s protracted ordeal, including suspension, removal from service and delay in initiating enquiry aligns with Court’s recognition that such circumstances warrant just compensation."

Upholding the petitioner's plea, the Court ordered the quashing of the impugned endorsement and directed the respondent corporation to pay interest on the delayed payment of the salary difference at the rate of 6% per annum.

This judgment is a significant stride in safeguarding the rights of employees under suspension and emphasizes the need for timely and fair administrative processes. Legal experts view this ruling as a precedent for future cases involving undue delays and procedural lapses in disciplinary proceedings against employees.

Date of Decision: 22nd January 2024

SRI T K SRINIVASA VS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL

 

Latest Legal News