HC: Delay in salary unjustified
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, September 28
Nearly 18 years after a teacher moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the Punjab Government, Justice K. Kannan has minced no words to say the delay in disbursing salary after securing her service was unjustified.
The ruling came on a petition filed by Raj Karni against the Punjab Government and other respondents. She was seeking the grant of interest on delayed payments for arrears of salary, increment etc.
The petition is just one of the two lakh cases pending before the High Court; and it is suspected that many of the petitioners are no more there to pursue their grievances. When some of these cases are suddenly listed, the counsels are often at a loss in the absence of complete records or instructions.
Attribute it to the shortage of judges or filing of frivolous petitions, the fact remains that the delay also tends to change the course of the outcome. At present, the High Court has a shortage of 21 judges. It has 47 judges against the sanctioned strength of 68.
Her petition, filed in 1995, was been directed to be posted after the disposal of another similar case, which was disposed of the same year after recording the counsel's statement that the government had paid Rs 11,637 by way of interest on delayed payment. The delay had apparently occurred in view of the stand taken by the state that JBT qualification obtained from Rajasthan University was not recognised.
In Karni's case, Justice Kannan observed that the petitioner had worked the entire period from January 1992 till December 1994 without salary. It was released after the disposal of an earlier writ petition filed by her that culminated in a judgment by the Supreme Court approving the qualification obtained by her.
Taking up the matter, Justice Kannan asserted: "The delay in disbursing salary after securing the service of the petitioner was unjustified". Considering the fact that the petitioner was paid the amounts due by way of salary on December 29, 1994, the petitioner shall be entitled to 9 per cent simple interest for the amount due and payable from January 31, 1992, (38 months before the institution of writ petition) to December 28, 1994, (the date when arrears were paid)".
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, September 28
Nearly 18 years after a teacher moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the Punjab Government, Justice K. Kannan has minced no words to say the delay in disbursing salary after securing her service was unjustified.
The ruling came on a petition filed by Raj Karni against the Punjab Government and other respondents. She was seeking the grant of interest on delayed payments for arrears of salary, increment etc.
The petition is just one of the two lakh cases pending before the High Court; and it is suspected that many of the petitioners are no more there to pursue their grievances. When some of these cases are suddenly listed, the counsels are often at a loss in the absence of complete records or instructions.
Attribute it to the shortage of judges or filing of frivolous petitions, the fact remains that the delay also tends to change the course of the outcome. At present, the High Court has a shortage of 21 judges. It has 47 judges against the sanctioned strength of 68.
Her petition, filed in 1995, was been directed to be posted after the disposal of another similar case, which was disposed of the same year after recording the counsel's statement that the government had paid Rs 11,637 by way of interest on delayed payment. The delay had apparently occurred in view of the stand taken by the state that JBT qualification obtained from Rajasthan University was not recognised.
In Karni's case, Justice Kannan observed that the petitioner had worked the entire period from January 1992 till December 1994 without salary. It was released after the disposal of an earlier writ petition filed by her that culminated in a judgment by the Supreme Court approving the qualification obtained by her.
Taking up the matter, Justice Kannan asserted: "The delay in disbursing salary after securing the service of the petitioner was unjustified". Considering the fact that the petitioner was paid the amounts due by way of salary on December 29, 1994, the petitioner shall be entitled to 9 per cent simple interest for the amount due and payable from January 31, 1992, (38 months before the institution of writ petition) to December 28, 1994, (the date when arrears were paid)".
No comments:
Post a Comment