Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V R K Sudhakar vs The State Of Ap on 24 December, 2021
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No. 9889 of 2021
ORDER:-
The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is non-payment of the monthly salaries to the petitioner from 01.09.2018 to 09.07.2019 and from 01.01.2020 to 30.03.2021 and also non-payment of the medical bills which is unjust, arbitrary and violative of petitioner's rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard Mr. Gudiseva Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I representing the respondents.
3. The petitioner is working as Village Revenue Officer in 18th Division Secretariat, Machilipatnam town. Prior to that, he worked in the said capacity at different areas. His case is that on 10.06.2013 he met with an accident, suffered serious injuries, surgeries were conducted and implants were inserted in his body, as a result of which he was bedridden for more than one year. He is unable to walk freely and the Medical Board, District Head Quarters Hospital, Machilipatnam, after physical examination issued a disability certificate dated 30.11.2017 certifying that there is 89% of impairment. Thereafter, he was also effected with "Zullian Berry Syndrome", a rare disease and has been taking treatment in Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad and using medicines continuously. He is also spending Rs.10,000/- to 2 NJS,J W.P.No.9889 of 2021 Rs.15,000/- per month towards medicines and also undergoing regular medical checkups. As he is unable to walk independently, he has engaged one male attendant to support the petitioner while walking or moving, since he alone cannot sit or stand himself.
4. The petitioner, vide proceedings dated 10.07.2019 of the 2nd respondent was transferred from Nelakurru to Block NO.3 of Machilipatnam and accordingly he joined there. Therefore, he was directed to attend duties of Village Revenue Officer at 18th Division, Buttaipet, Machilipatnam vide proceedings dated 30.05.2020. Since then, the petitioner has been discharging duties as Ward Secretary in view of the re-designation of the existing V.R.O's(Grade-I) by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The grievance of the petitioner is that his salaries as V.R.O., of Nelakurru village for the period from 01.09.2018 to 09.07.2019 was not paid. Further his salary as Ward Secretary of 18th Division was not paid from 01.01.2020 onwards. As the petitioner's requests for payment of salaries has not yielded any positive response, and he is subjected to severe financial hardship and serious prejudice, having left with no other alternative, he is constrained to approach this Court, seeking appropriate directions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the several contentions raised in the writ petition with reference to the physical condition of the petitioner and the financial distress being faced by him, submits that as per Article 72 of A.P.Financial 3 NJS,J W.P.No.9889 of 2021 Code(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioner is entitled for his salary. He submits that as per Article 72 of the Code, it is the duty of the State to pay salary on the last working day of the month of a Government Servant on presentation of bills. He would submit that non-payment of salary would amount to denial of livelihood and infringement of right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also submits that non-payment of salary tantamount to contravention of Article 300- A of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel submits that when the Government deferred payment of salaries in the pandemic due to COVID-19, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Government to pay the salaries with interest. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Justice S.S.Sandhawalia(Retired) and Others1, D.D.Tewari(dead) through LRs., v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others2, to contend that the respondents are liable to pay interest on the salary which was not paid to the petitioner. While submitting that the petitioner is in dire need of salaries to meet his family and regular medical expenses, learned counsel seeks the relief sought for in the writ petition.
6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader while referring to the stand taken by the respondents in the counter- affidavit contends that the petitioner was transferred during the 1 (1994) 2 SCC 240 2 (2014) 8 SCC 894 4 NJS,J W.P.No.9889 of 2021 ban period vide proceedings of the District Collector, Krishna District dated 20.08.2018 on administrative grounds w.e.f. 01.09.2018 to 09.07.2019 and therefore he is not entitled to draw the salary on regular basis. He submits that about 18 V.R.Os including the petitioner were transferred on administrative grounds during ban period and as such their salary bills were not passed by the Treasury. He, however, submits that the action of the Collector, Krishna District, was subsequently ratified by the Government vide Memo dated 12.01.2021. He also submits that the petitioner is drawing regular salaries from 10.07.2019 onwards, the petitioner went on medical leave on 01.01.2020 to 25.03.2020 for which the salary was credited after regularization of leave period. While referring to the averments in the counter- affidavit, that the petitioner has never attended to the duties assigned by the Tashildhar, Machilipatnam, he further submits that the petitioner did not submit any duty Certificate from the authorities concerned for giving salary on regular basis. He submits that non-payment of salaries, if any, is in view of the lapses of the petitioner in discharging his duties and therefore the respondents cannot be found fault with. Making the said submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader urges that the writ petition may be dismissed.
7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the allegations made in the counter-affidavit attributing the lapses to the petitioner and submitted that had there been any iota of truth 5 NJS,J W.P.No.9889 of 2021 in the said allegations, the respondents would have issued memos or show cause notices to the petitioner, seeking his explanation for not discharging duties as entrusted by the concerned Tahsildhar. He submits that ample material is placed on record which clearly goes to show that the petitioner is prompt in his duties and further that there are no remarks in the petitioner's Service Register. He also draws the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 13.07.2021 which would indicate that the petitioner's name is under consideration for promotion as Senior Assistant in the Revenue Department. While emphasizing that the petitioner has been regularly attending to his duties, the learned counsel would emphatically submits that the bio-metric data would clearly disclose the regular attendance of the petitioner to the duties and that there is no valid basis for the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, to the contra. The learned counsel also submits that in the Indian Standard Organization and QSB Audit, the Secretariat wherein the petitioner is discharging his duties, is recognized as a Model Secretariat. Accordingly, he submits that appropriate orders may be passed.
8. The contentions advanced by both sides, with reference to the material available on record is considered. As seen from the counter-affidavit, there is no dispute with regard to discharge of functions/duties by the petitioner as V.R.O., for the period from 01.09.2018 to 09.07.2019 in Nelakurru village, Machilipatnam 6 NJS,J W.P.No.9889 of 2021 District. The only objection appears to be that the transfer of the petitioner to the said place was made during the ban period, on administrative grounds. In such an event, more particularly in the absence of any material which would go to show that the petitioner had not discharged his duties during the relevant period, the denial of salaries which are due and payable is not justified. The justification sought to be projected in the counter-affidavit that the salary bills were not passed by the Treasury as the transfer of the petitioner along with others was made during the ban period cannot be appreciated. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and ordained by Article 72 of the Code, an employee is entitled for his salary on the last working day of the month as provided in the said Article. The payment of salary to an employee/petitioner cannot be deferred, except in the manner contemplated under the provisions of appropriate Service Rules or any Court orders, but not otherwise.
9. In the present case, no material is placed to show that the salary to the petitioner during the relevant period has been denied due to any reasons owing to the conduct of the petitioner in discharging of his duties/functions. Though, an attempt was made in the counter-affidavit to the effect that the petitioner was not regular to his duties, and due to non-availability of the petitioner, the students and the public are subjected to inconvenience, no material in support of the same has been filed. On the contrary, the material on record would go to show that the 7 NJS,J W.P.No.9889 of 2021 petitioner was up right in discharging his functions. Therefore, the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents with regard to alleged lapses/allegations that the petitioner is irregular to duties cannot be countenanced and therefore rejected.
10. As noticed earlier, the action of the 2nd respondent in transferring the petitioner along with 17 other VROs during the ban period on administrative grounds was ratified by the Government vide Memo dated 12.01.2021. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the action of respondents in not paying the salaries to the petitioner during the period from 01.09.2018 to 09.07.2019 and from 01.01.2020 to 30.03.2021 is not only unjust, but also amounts to violation of his rights guaranteed under Articles, 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. In Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari v. State of Andhra Pradesh3, a Division Bench of this Court, in the context of non-payment of salaries/pension during COVID period held as follows:
"48. Payment of salary or pension to the employees is only to eke out their livelihood during their service by way of salary and after retirement by way of pension. If whole or part of the salary or pension is deferred, it amounts to denial of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India........"
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part, with a direction to the respondents to pay the arrears for the period from 1.09.2018 to 09.07.2019 and from 01.01.2020 to 3 2020(5) ALT 77 8 NJS,J W.P.No.9889 of 2021 30.03.2021, if not already paid, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the respondents are directed to examine the petitioner's claim for payment of Medical Bills and release the same, subject to entitlement of the petitioner, within the time as indicated supra.
12. In view of the finding that the respondents unjustly denied payment of salaries, it is appropriate to award costs of Rs.10,000/-. The respondents shall pay costs within four weeks to the petitioner.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.
__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 24.12.2021.
BLV 9 NJS,J W.P.No.9889 of 2021 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.9889 of 2021 Dated 24.12.2021 BLV