Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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