High Court · 2015

This case was admitted for hearing on 24.09.2010. Case file does not indicate th at affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Thus the averments made in the w rit petition have remained uncontroverted. Accordingly, these averments are take n as correct and the Court would proceed accordingly. Facts as narrated above reflect a pathetic state of affairs and the inhuman mann er in which a grade-IV employee was treated and continues to be so treated. Firs tly, he was transferred from one place to another and thereafter, he was not pai d his salary from 19.04.1995 by taking the plea that his last pay certificate wa s not released by the last employer. At that stage, petitioner was transferred f rom Ramkrishna Nagar Development Block to Badarpur Development Block. He had no authority to ensure forwarding of his last pay certificate from Ramkrishna Nagar Development Block to Badarpur Development Block. When the petitioner was transf erred, it was the duty of the authority to have forwarded all the relevant paper s connected with the service of the petitioner to the next place of posting. Doc uments on record indicates that last pay certificate of the petitioner was forwa rded by the Senior Block Development Officer, Ramkrishna Nagar Development Block , to the Senior Block Development Officer, Badarpur Development Block, on 28.10. 1997 i.e., more than 2‰ years after his transfer and taking the plea of non-avai lability of the last pay certificate, his salary was not paid. By the time the l ast pay certificate was forwarded, the petitioner was again transferred. Because of the inhuman manner in which the petitioner was treated, he could not continue his job beyond May, 2005. Instead of appreciating the hardship faced by the petitioner, authorities in the DRDA, Karimganj, only added to the agony of the petitioner by not allowing him to resume duty. Sufferings that an employee and his family members undergo for non-receipt of sa lary for months and years together can be felt only by such employees and their hapless family members. A grade IV employee with his meager salary has not only to feed himself but also has to look after the needs of his family, which includ es expenses for food, housing, educational expenditure of the children, expenses for medicine etc. It is unthinkable as to how the family can survive such an or deal. The officers and the other authorities, it appears, are totally immune to the sufferings of such low grade employees. On top of that, for five long years, when this case is pending before this Court, respondents have not deemed it fit and proper to file an affidavit. This only reflects the totally callous attitud e of the respondents and the complete lack of empathy. It is the legal and constitutional right of the petitioner to be paid his salary for the services rendered by him. Denial of salary to the petitioner is clearly in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India. The Apex C ourt in a catena of judgments has held that right to life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution would encompass a right to live with human dignit y. It is incomprehensible as to how a lowly placed grade-IV employee can live li fe with dignity without salary for months and years together. Respondents have a cted in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner in denying the petitioner his du e salary thus violating the petitioner’s indefeasible fundamental right of right to life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the si tuation needs to be remedied. In view of the above, respondents, more particularly respondent Nos.2 and 3, i.e ., Commissioner of Panchayat and Rural Development, Assam, and Project Director, DRDA, Karimganj, are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the p eriod from 19.04.2015 to May, 2005, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parallely, the said authorities s hall take necessary steps to allow re-sumption of duty by the petitioner. Howeve r, it is made clear that this should not be a ground to delay release of salary to the petitioner as directed above. For the manner in which the petitioner has been treated and his right under Arti cle 21 has been violated, cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on the respondents to b e paid by respondent No.1 i.e., Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department along with the salary within t he period as indicated above. Respondent No.1 may also conduct an enquiry to identify the erring officials and if they are still in service, to take appropriate administrative measures again st them. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the Member Secretary, Assam State Legal Services Authority, Guwahati, who shall monitor compliance of the above directi ons and ensure payment of the due amount to the petitioner. In the event of non- compliance, Member Secretary shall submit report to the Court. Writ petition is allowed with cost in the above terms.