Jaiwanti v. State Of Haryana And ORS

C. W. P. No. 12239 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C. W. P. No. 12239 of 2015 Date of Decision : April 04, 2016 Jaiwanti ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana and another ....

Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * To be referred to Reporters or not ?

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? * * * Present :

Mr. Vikram Jeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

:

Through the present petition, the petitioner, who is serving the respondents as a Sweeper on DC rates, has prayed for release of her salary from July 2014 along with interest.

A short reply, by way of affidavit of Senior Medical Officer, CHC, Samalkha, has been filed, through which it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner's salary from April 2014 till 31.03.2015 has been paid and disbursed to her on 10.06.2015 and on that ground, it is prayed that the present petition be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

MONIKA 2016.04.12 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

C. W. P. No. 12239 of 2015 It is unfortunate that the petitioner, who is serving the respondents as a Sweeper, in spite of having served the respondents, had to go without salary for over one year and to get the same, had to approach this Court through the present petition. No reason is forthcoming in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents so as to why for over one year and two months, she was not paid her salary. It seems that the respondents are completely oblivious to the apathy of a Class-IV employee like the petitioner for having served them for over an year and having not got any salary for that period.

In view of the aforesaid facts, directions are issued to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Haryana to look into the matter and take effective steps so that Class IV employees like the petitioner, even while serving the respondents on DC rates, are paid their salaries well in time. The action so taken be brought to the notice of this Court by way of a compliance report to be submitted within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. For the delay in release of the salary of the petitioner, and for the reason that she had to approach this Court for disbursement of her salary for the services rendered by her, she is held entitled to interest on the delayed release of salary @ 9% per annum, as also to costs of ` 10,000/-. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. However, for compliance, the matter be listed on 07.07.2016. ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE April 04, 2016 monika MONIKA 2016.04.12 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document