Gauhati High Court Orders Salary Arrears Payment to Postal Employee
Court Upholds Tribunal’s Ruling
The Gauhati High Court recently supported a decision made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) regarding the salary payments owed to a postal employee who had been effectively barred from duty due to a stay on his transfer. Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury presided over the case, wherein the Central Government challenged the CAT’s directive for the payment of salary arrears to the employee.
On April 27, the court observed, “Despite the request of the respondent-employee for his transfer to a neighbouring place having been accepted, he was not allowed to join the duty.” The judges concluded that the tribunal acted within its rights in determining that the employee’s salary should not be withheld.
The court emphasized that the employee, whose salary could not be stopped for the period from January 2021 to November 2023, was unable to work due to circumstances beyond his control.
Details of the Employee’s Transfer Case
Tapas Kumar Chakraborty, an assistant superintendent with the Department of Posts since 1997, was transferred from the Cachar Division to the Darrang Division in September 2020. This transfer followed the lifting of his suspension to facilitate a disciplinary inquiry at his original post.
Chakraborty contested this transfer before the CAT, citing his son’s impending board examinations and his wife’s employment in Cachar as significant factors. Subsequently, the tribunal issued an interim stay order in October 2020 on the transfer and related orders.
Although the Department of Posts paid Chakraborty’s salary through December 2020, payments ceased starting January 2021. The Central Government contended that the employee did not report to duty at the new location and did not apply for leave, which justified withholding payment under the principle of “no work, no pay.”
Challenging Salary Withholding
In response to the cessation of salary payments, Chakraborty filed a new request for his arrears including 12 percent interest, arguing that the department was violating the stay order issued by the tribunal.
The tribunal ultimately ruled that the payment of salary was warranted because the employee was not permitted to assume his duty, indicating that his absence from work was not self-imposed. It was noted that there was no official document indicating that the employee had been barred from joining duty at Silchar, a decision that could have been challenged if it existed.
The tribunal stated that Chakraborty’s voluntary acceptance of the transfer should not have rendered his case moot, and he was therefore entitled to receive his salary.
Other Relevant Court Rulings
In a separate ruling, the Allahabad High Court demanded the payment of regular salaries to employees, noting that failing to pay for work performed violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and amounts to exploitation. The court’s statement was made in the context of a case where a clerk had not been compensated despite providing continuous service to the employer.
Moreover, the Orissa High Court recently stated that pensions are not discretionary but rather a constitutional right. The court directed that a retired employee be awarded 12 percent interest for a seven-year delay in the release of his terminal benefits. Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash underscored that pension represents a constitutional guarantee and is classified as property protected under the right to property within the Indian Constitution.
