Karnataka High Court
Mr. K.C. Umesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7460
WP No. 21911 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 21911 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. K.C. UMESH,
S/O LATE G.V. CHINNASOMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DEPUTED TO BBMP, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,
SHAKTHI BHAVAN, BENGALURU,
R/AT NO. 1011, BSK 6TH STAGE,
1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 098.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DANAPPA PRADHANAPPA PANIBHATE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by V KRISHNA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
HIGH COURT
OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP),
KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7460
WP No. 21911 of 2023
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO R-1
AND 2 TO RELEASE THE SALARY FROM 27/07/2018 TO
11/07/2019 ON THE PAY SCALE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND
TREATED AS COMPULSORY WAITING PERIOD UNDER RULE
8(15) (F), KCSR RULES AND CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 05/08/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a retired executive engineer of respondent No.2- Corporation, seeking mandamus against the respondents to release the salary from 27.07.2018 to 11.07.2019, on the pay scale of an executive engineer by treating the said period as a compulsory waiting period as contemplated under Rule 8 (15)(F) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short, 'KCSR Rules').
2. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner was deputed to the BBMP office at Yelahanka, Bengaluru, from Karnataka Power Corporation, -3- NC: 2024:KHC:7460 WP No. 21911 of 2023 Bengaluru, vide order dated 29.11.2017 issued by respondent No.1. Order of deputation was not implemented by respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by inaction, petitioner filed a writ petition before the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The Coordinate Bench has issued a direction to respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to work in the BBMP office. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of respondents No.1 and 2 in not considering the representation dated 05.08.2021. The petitioner is seeking to release the salary from 27.07.2018 to 11.07.2019 by taking it as a compulsory waiting period.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records.
4. In the adjudication of the matter pertaining to the entitlement of employees to salary during compulsory waiting periods, this Court has undertaken a thorough examination of pertinent legal doctrines and jurisprudence. It is imperative to delineate the essence of a compulsory -4- NC: 2024:KHC:7460 WP No. 21911 of 2023 waiting period, wherein an employee finds themselves in a state of temporary suspension from their usual duties, often owing to administrative exigencies or procedural requirements within the organization. This period, although marked by a lack of active engagement in work- related tasks, does not stem from any fault or misconduct on the part of the employee.
5. The foundational principle underpinning the legal entitlement of employees to receive their salaries during compulsory waiting period is grounded in the precepts of natural justice and fairness. It is a cornerstone of modern employment law that individuals should not suffer undue financial hardship as a consequence of circumstances beyond their control. In this vein, the notion of maintaining financial stability and safeguarding the economic well-being of employees assumes paramount importance.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7460 WP No. 21911 of 2023
6. The Deputy Commissioner of respondent No.2- Corporation, vide communication dated 17.06.2020, has communicated to the Government to treat the period indicated in the representation as a compulsory waiting period and has recommended to release the salary for the said period by treating it as a compulsory waiting period. On examining the communication dated 17.06.2020, the Deputy Commissioner of respondent No.2-corporation, having examined the material, has recommended treating the period from 27.07.2018 to 11.07.2019 as a compulsory waiting period and has recommended releasing the salary for said period. Though there is a recommendation/communication dated 17.06.2020, there is total inaction on the part of respondent No.1-State. It is also relevant to note that there is partial compliance by respondent No.1-State. The petitioner was placed under a compulsory waiting period on two occasions. Though respondents have released the salary for the period from 16.10.2017 to 26.07.2018, however, petitioner's request -6- NC: 2024:KHC:7460 WP No. 21911 of 2023 to release the salary from 12.07.2019 to 13.02.2020 has gone unconsidered.
7. This Court has also taken cognizance of the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner to treat the period in question as compulsory waiting and subsequent directive to pay salaries. The recommendation made by the Commissioner carries significant weight, as it reflects a thorough assessment of the situation and is based on a sound understanding of the applicable laws and regulations. The decision to treat the period as compulsory waiting indicates a recognition of the employee's right to receive remuneration during this time, despite the absence of active duties.
8. This Court acknowledges and upholds the authority vested in the Deputy Commissioner to make such recommendations, especially when it is in the best interest of fairness and equity for the employee concerned. It is imperative to note that the Deputy -7- NC: 2024:KHC:7460 WP No. 21911 of 2023 Commissioner's directive to pay salaries during the compulsory waiting period aligns with established legal principles and serves to protect the financial well-being of the employee.
9. In the light of communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner of respondent No.2-Corporation as per Annexure-D, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has a legal right to seek release of the salary by treating it as a waiting period. Respondent No.1-State is equally under obligation to consider the representation and take appropriate action by taking note of Rule 8(15)(F) of the KCSR Rules. Since there is inaction on the part of respondent No.1-State, this is a fit case where this Court has to exercise inherent jurisdiction and issue appropriate direction to respondent No.1-State.
10. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:7460 WP No. 21911 of 2023 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Respondent No.1-State is hereby directed to forthwith consider the representation dated 05.08.2021 and pass appropriate orders by taking note of the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.11014/2018 and also communication dated 17.06.2020, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of respondent No.2-Corporation.
iii. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK