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,
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.
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.
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.
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
NC: 2024:KHC:7460
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:
NC: 2024:KHC:7460
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
CT: BHK
