Deprivation of salary violates Articles 21, 23, and 300-A of the Constitution: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court recently reminded the State government and the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation that depriving the Corporation's workers of their monthly salaries violates their rights under Articles 21, 23 and 300-A of the Constitution of India (Uttarakhand Roadways Karamchari Union vs. State of Uttarakhand)..The Court emphasised that neither the Transport Corporation nor the State Government are permitted to deprive employees of their rightful salaries month after month..A Division Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma observed, “Considering the fact that these employees do not belong to the upper echelon of the Corporation, and are mere workers, as most of them happen to be drivers, conductors, and other employees, it is surprising that both the Corporation, and the State Government have abandoned them out in the cold. Needless to say, the deprivation of the salary is violative of Articles 21, 23 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.”.The Bench added that even the Supreme Court, in Kapila Hingorani vs. State of Bihar, had held that the State cannot be permitted to violate the fundamental rights and the human rights of its employees. As such, the High Court emphasised that the State government cannot evade its responsibility in the issue. ."It cannot be permitted to hide behind the fig leaf to claim that the responsibility of paying the salaries of their employees is that of the Corporation, and not of the State Government", the Court said. .The dispute before the Court arose after the employees of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation were not paid arrears of their salaries from February 2021 - June 2021. The aggrieved employees approached the High Court for relief..Pursuant to the Court’s earlier directions, an affidavit was filed on the issue by Dr. Ranjit Kumar Sinha, the Transport Secretary. As per the same, Rs. 23 crores were released to the Transport Corporation so that salaries may be paid to regular employees for the month of February and so the salaries payable to contractual employees for March were disbursed..Further, the Chief Minister also approved the release of Rs. 34 crores to the Transport Corporation from the contingency fund, the Court was told..Abhishek Rohila, MD of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, informed the Court that with these funds, the salaries of regular employees for the month of March and the salaries of all the employees, both regular and contractual, for April would be paid..The Court, however, expressed concern over the a decision taken to defer the payment of 50% of the employee’s salaries in the coming months. The Court proceeded to question the State about the legality of such a move. .The Bench also raised queries as to why the State of Uttarakhand had not begun negotiations with the Uttar Pradesh Government regarding the repayment of about Rs. 220 crores owed to the Uttarakhand government. .The Court was informed that the dispute between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand over the repayment of this amount remained in limbo on account of a case pending before the Supreme Court as well as failed negotiations in a meeting overseen by the Union government in Mrch 2020. .The Court reprimanded the callous attitude of the two State Governments, noting that the issue of payment of salaries has been hanging fire for the last sixteen years and must be resolved expeditiously, since it is not just the State of Uttarakhand, but the people of Uttarakhand who continue to suffer..The Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand, SS Sandhu, in turn, assured the Court that he will try his best to set up a meeting between the Chief Ministers of both States to resolve the financial issues between the governments..A responsibility was also placed on the Union of India to play a proactive role in resolving the issues between the two States as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months..Given the Chief Secretary’s submission that a Cabinet Meeting would be convened by July 31 on this issue, the case has been next listed on August 4..[Read Order]