Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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