Srinagar, Dec 2: The High Court of J&K and Ladakhhas held that when an employee at the request of the borrowing department is sent on deputation from his parent department, it is the liability of the borrowing department to pay his salary.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said this while deciding on a plea by a driver, Abass Ali, who was deputed to Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil( LAHDC) from J&K State Road Transport Corporation ( SRTC) for twenty months.
Ali submitted before the Court that he is a permanent employee working as a driver with the SRTC) and that on 25 May 2016, he was transferred on deputation to the office of LAHDC. He contended that he discharged his duties as a driver in the office of LAHDC but was not paid his salary from 1 June 2015 to 29 December 2016 despite many requests made by him in this regard.
After perusing the records, the court noted that the LAHDC had written a letter dated 30th May, 2015 to the Managing Director, SRTC, Srinagar, conveying that there was no provision for payment of salary to the petitioner and that his salary dues should be paid by the SRTC. “Another similar communication has been addressed by LAHDC to the Manager, Tourist Services, J&K SRTC, Srinagar, on 01.08.2015,” court said.
In response to these communications, the court said, it seems that General Manager (Admn), J&K SRTC, has addressed letter dated 13thSeptember, 2015, to the Executive Councilor, Works, Power & Education, LAHDC, Kargil, conveying that the SRTC has no provision towards payment of salary to its employees who have been sent on deputation to other departments.
“When an employee is sent on deputation from his parent department to the borrowing department at the request of the borrowing department, it is the liability of the borrowing department to pay the salary of the employee,” the Court said, the while allowing plea by Abass.
“The stand taken by the LAHDC that the petitioner (Ali) was only attached and not deputed to it, is belied from the order issued by the parent department whereby services of petitioner were kept at the disposal of the LAHDC”, the court said, adding, “Therefore, it is the LAHDC which has to pay the salary to the petitioner during the period he served with the said organization, particularly when in the deputation order itself it was made clear that the salary of the petitioner has to be borne by the Council”.
The LAHDC, the court said, cannot wriggle out of liability to pay the legitimately earned salary of the petitioner by taking a stand that it was a case of attachment only, which is not the correct position.
The Council, the court said, continued to avail Ali’s services for good 20 months without paying any salary to him and without resolving the issue relating to payment of his salary when his parent organization (SRTC) had made it clear to the Council that the liability of paying salary rests with it.
The court directed the authorities concerned to release Ali’s salary for the period he has served with Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.