“No Justification In Withholding Any Part Of Salary”: J&K High Court Directs Release Of Withheld Salaries For EDI Employees

Update: 2024-05-28 06:19 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
trueasdfstory

Directing the release of withheld salaries of employees of the Jammu & Kashmir Entrepreneurship Development Institute (JKEDI) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently ruled that allegations of irregularities in appointment or promotion cannot be a reason for withholding salaries of employees.In allowing their plea Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,“The respondents have...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Directing the release of withheld salaries of employees of the Jammu & Kashmir Entrepreneurship Development Institute (JKEDI) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently ruled that allegations of irregularities in appointment or promotion cannot be a reason for withholding salaries of employees.

In allowing their plea Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“The respondents have no justification in withholding any part of the salary due to the petitioners. Whether the respondents pay the salary out of the funds relating to Grant in Aid or out of the funds from the resources of JKEDI, it is none of the concern of the petitioners”.

The case revolved around the petitioners, employed by JKEDI, who found their salaries withheld following an audit report issued by the Directorate of Audit and Inspections, J&K.

The report prompted the imposition of conditions by the Industries and Commerce Department, restricting the use of Grant in Aid funds for salary disbursement to only 56 posts approved by the Government, leaving the remaining employees' salaries to be covered by JKEDI's own resources.

The petitioners argued that they were previously paid salaries from Government of J&K's Grant in Aid to JKEDI. However, these orders limit Grant in Aid funds to salaries for only 56 approved posts, forcing the rest to be paid from JKEDI's resources. They sought to revoke these conditions and restore funding for all employees salaries as before.

The respondents, which included the government's Finance Department and JKEDI, contended that the petitioners' appointments and promotions were irregular and lacked proper financial approval. They argued that the grant could only be used to pay salaries for sanctioned posts.

Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Dhar observed that the petitioners were undeniably working for JKEDI and had earned their salaries. The court further held that the alleged irregularities in appointment or promotion did not absolve the respondents of their obligation to pay the salaries for the work done.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners are working with respondent/JKEDI. Once the said position is admitted, the respondents cannot deny to them the wages/salary in accordance with the terms of their engagement. The contention of the respondents that appointment/promotion of the petitioners is irregular, does not absolve them of their obligation to pay salary/wages to them for the period they have actually worked”, the court underscored.

Pointing out to the fact that the respondents had not initiated any action against the petitioners regarding the alleged irregularities the court emphasized that the interdepartmental issue between the Finance Department and JKEDI should not impact the timely release of salaries.

In alignment with this conclusion the court ordered the immediate release of full salaries, including arrears, without attaching any conditions.

“The Government of UT of J&K and the JKEDI shall resolve the issue with regard to the salary component of the employees of JKEDI and ensure that the legitimately earned salary of the petitioners is released in their favour forthwith”, the bench concluded.

Case Title: WASEEM AHAD AND OTHERS Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 132

Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate appeared for the petitioner, Mr.Mubashir Majid Malik, Dy.AG represented the respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Full View

Tags:    

Similar News