Alok Prakash Dubey vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh representing the respondents.

The petitioner who was initially appointed as Shramik in electricity department, was awarded time scale in the year 2007 by respondent No. 2-Executive Engineer, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam, Varanasi.

Grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being paid arrears as well as monthly salary regularly. He has also prayed for not giving effect to the letter dated 18.8.2008, by which petitioner has been informed that he is absent since 7.4.2008 without information and directed to report for duty.

Sri B.P. Singh, counsel for respondents has placed reliance upon paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the counter-affidavit, relevant extract of which read as under:

The fact is that the salary of the petitioner was deducted for 11 days in the month of April, 2005 and not 19 days as alleged. His salary was also not paid for the month of July, August and September, 2005 for remaining absent without any information and leave application. He had also not given any reply to the letters sent to him calling upon the explanation for remaining absent for such long time. And in the current financial year salary of the petitioner was again deducted in the month of April, 2008 of 16 days for remaining absent without any information and sanction of leave. Since the petitioner is working as a workman the Junior Engineer who maintains the record of attendance of the workmen working under him. Who sent the pay bill of the employees working under him for approving and payment of salary before the Executive Engineer. It is further stated that the claim of the petitioner with regard to the dues of April, 2008 of July, August and September is highly belated and the petition is not maintainable for the same. It is further stated that the deponent was informed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 19.8.2008 the reasons for deduction of the wages of the petitioner in the month of April, July and August which was stated to be remaining absent without any application or sanction of leave and also informed that for certain period he was in the jail in connection with the some criminal cases in which he was accused.

That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition, it is stated that difference of pay due to grant of the time scale was already sanctioned and sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer vide letter No. 2614 dated 23.8.2007 but the authorities being busy in the supply and maintenance of electricity and in collection of revenue work the amount required for the payment as per bill already submitted could not be obtained as yet. The reminder was also sent and the same will be immediately on receipt of the fund.

He has further placed reliance upon Annexure-CA5 to the counter-affidavit which indicates the days petitioner has been absent and submits that salary of the petitioner has been deducted for remaining on unauthorised leave.

Perusal of paragraph No. 5 of the counter-affidavit shows that claim for payment of arrears of salary with regard to dues of April, July, August and September, 2005 is highly belated and is not maintainable whereas according to paragraph No. 6 of the counter-affidavit, inability for payment has been shown on the ground that authorities were busy in the supply and maintenance of electricity and collection of revenue.

The petitioner being a person employed by the Corporation, it is responsibility of the employer corporation to ensure that wages to its employees are paid within the wage period as provided u/s 3 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. No reason has been given by the respondents as to why they have not paid wages of the employee, I.e., petitioner within the wage period.

As regards payment of arrears of difference of time scale is concerned, the amount is admitted in the counter-affidavit. As the petitioner had been granted time scale in 2007, the same ought to have been paid to the petitioner by the respondents by now. Therefore, as regards difference of salary of time scale, the same shall be paid alongwith 6% interest to the petitioner by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

So far as claim which is disputed on the ground of petitioner''s remaining absent, is concerned, the petitioner may approach the authorities under the relevant forum for determination of the question of fact as to whether any illegal deduction has been made or not.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands partly allowed. No order as to costs.