SRINAGAR, Dec 2: Observing that the Borrowing Department is liable to pay salary to the employee who has been sent on deputation from his parent department, the High Court directed the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) Kargil to release the salary of the aggrieved employee with interest.
Justice Sanjay Dhar allowed the writ petition of Abbas Ali who actually is the employee of State Road Transport Corporation and has been sent to LAHDC on deputation with the direction to Chairman LAHDC and Executive Councillor Work, Power and Education (LAHDC) to release the salary of Ali for the period he has served the department.
Court directed the salary of the petitioner be released along with interest of 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of this writ petition till realization of the amount. Court while passing these directions, recorded that 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.
Court said the stand taken by the LAHDC that the petitioner was only attached and not deputed to it, is belied from the order issued by the parent department whereby services of the petitioner were kept at the disposal of the LAHDC.
Therefore, court added that 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 respondents Chairman and Executive Councillor court said cannot wriggle out of their 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.
Petitioner Ali has served with LAHDC from May, 2015 to December, 2016 and has not been paid his salary during this period. The only question court said, which is required to be determined is as to which amongst the two organizations -LAHDC and SRTC, is obliged to pay salary to the petitioner.
Court while answering to the said question has recorded that the Council continued to avail the services of the petitioner for good 20 months without paying any salary to him and without resolving the issue relating to payment of his salary when the parent organization of the petitioner had made it clear to the Council that the liability of paying salary of the petitioner rests with it. “Respondents Chairman and Executive Councillor of LAHDC are, therefore, under an obligation not only to release the salary of the petitioner for the period he has served with them but also to pay interest”, read the judgment.