Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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, NC: 2024:KHC:7460 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 NC: 2024:KHC:7460 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.

NC: 2024:KHC:7460

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 NC: 2024:KHC:7460 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.