Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1254 (HP)

Court on its own motion v. State of H. P.

2017-11-14

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. On a letter petition, taking suo moto cognizance, this Court issued notice to the State. Allegedly, salaries of 99 nurses posted at the Lal Bahadur Shastri Medical College and Hospital, Mandi (hereinafter referred to as Medical College), were not disbursed for more than seven months. The Court requested Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, Advocate, to assist as an Amicus. 2. Today in Court, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, has handed over affidavit dated 13.11.2017 that of the Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, admitting the following facts: (i) The Medical College is run by the State Government. (ii) With the approval of the Government, through Rogi Kalyan Smiti, nurses were posted in the Medical College. (iii) Salary could not be disbursed for want of grant-in-aid under the appropriate Head of Account. (iv) Budgetary allocation of a sum of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-, under various Heads, including grant-in-aid salary was made. (v) With the completion of codal formalities, emoluments to the tune of Rs. 72,71,598/- stood released to the appointees. This was so done on 31.8.2017. (vi) With effect from 1.10.2017, a Sub Treasury at Near Chowk, District Mandi, was made functional and operational, for which place funds stood allocated for disbursement. (vii) On 30.10.2017, further some of Rs. 1,02,28,402/- stands sanctioned and reallocated to the newly created Treasury office. This was towards the amount of grant-in-aid salary. (viii) Emoluments upto 31.8.2017 of all the appointees, including nursing and paramedical categories, stand released. 3. Sum and substance of the affidavit being that salaries could not be disbursed to the employees, more so the nursing staff, on account of lack of funds and proper mechanism for disbursement in place. 4. Any which way, certain facts cannot be disputed–(a) factum of employment of staff, including nurses, (b) relationship of employer and employee, (c) amount due and admissible, (d) delay in disbursement of salaries, and (e) that the employees were entitled to timely disbursement of salary. 5. Well, this takes us to a larger issue and that being as to whether the State and its functionaries are duty bound to take appropriate action for timely disbursement of salaries of its employees or not. Is not the Welfare State obliged under the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) to take timely action, ensuring disbursement of undisputed emoluments. Is not the Welfare State obliged under the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) to take timely action, ensuring disbursement of undisputed emoluments. Also, as to whether an employee has a corresponding right in law, to receive the same within time or not. 6. In the instant case, salaries of large number of employees are not being disbursed within time. Is it not a case of mis-governance and/or lack of governance, violating the right of livelihood of an employee or not? 7. With undisputed facts, we proceed to examine the position in law. 8. Part XIV of the Constitution deals with the services under the Union and the States. By virtue of Article 309, conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts, in connection with the affairs of the State, can be regulated. 9. The Medical College is run by the State and the appointment of nurses and the staff is in accordance with the procedure established by law, is not in dispute. Right to a sum of money is property 10. A Five Judges Bench of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranjojirao Shinde & another, AIR 1968 SCC 1053, has observed: “It is obvious that a right to a sum of money is property” 11. A Seven Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Pathak and another v. Union of India and others, (1978) 2 SCC 50 observed: “13. It is clear from the scheme of fundamental rights embodied in Part III of the Constitution that the guarantee of the right to property is contained in Article 19 (1) (f) and clauses (1) and (2) of Article 31. It stands to reason that 'property' cannot have one meaning in Article 19(1)(f), another in Article 31 clause (1) and still another in Article 31, clause (2). 'Property' must have the same connotation in all the three Articles and since these are constitutional provisions intended to secure a fundamental right, they must receive the widest interpretation and must be held to refer to property of every kind. 'Property' must have the same connotation in all the three Articles and since these are constitutional provisions intended to secure a fundamental right, they must receive the widest interpretation and must be held to refer to property of every kind. While discussing the scope and content of Entry 42 in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which confers power on Parliament and the Legislatures to legislate with respect to "acquisition and requisitioning of property" It was pointed out by Shah J., speaking on behalf of the majority in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 564 that property which can be compulsorily acquired by legislation under this Entry means the highest right a man can have to anything, being that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels which does not depend on another’s courtesy: it includes ownership, estates and interests in corporeal things, and also rights such as trade-marks, copyrights, patents and even rights in persona capable of transfer or transmission, such, as debts; and signifies a beneficial right to or a thing considered as having a money value, especially with reference to transfer or succession, and to their capacity of being injured. It would, therefore, seem that, according to the decision of the majority in R.C. Cooper's case, debts and other rights in personam capable of transfer or transmission are property which can form the subject- matter of compulsory acquisition. And this would seem to be unquestionable on principle, since even jurisprudentially debts and other rights of action are property and there is no reason why they should be excluded from the protection of the constitutional guarantee. Hidayatullah, C.J., had occasion to consider the true nature of debt in H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur & Ors. v. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 85 , where the question was whether the Privy Purse payable to the Ruler was property of which he could be said to be deprived by the Order of the President withdrawing his recognition as Ruler. The learned Chief Justice, making a very penetrating analysis of the jural relationship involved, in a debt, pointed out that a debt or a liability to pay money passes through four stages. First there is a debt not yet due. The learned Chief Justice, making a very penetrating analysis of the jural relationship involved, in a debt, pointed out that a debt or a liability to pay money passes through four stages. First there is a debt not yet due. The debt has not yet become a part of the obligor's 'things' because no net liability has yet arisen. The Second stage is when the liability may have arisen but is not either ascertained or admitted. Here again the amount due has not become a part of the obligor's things, The third stage is reached when the liability is both ascertained and admitted. Then it is property proper of the debtor in the creditor's hands. The law begins to recognise such property in insolvency, in ,dealing with it in fraud of creditors, fraudulent preference of one creditor against another, subrogation, equitable estoppel, stoppage intransitive etc. A credit-debt is then a debt fully provable and which is fixed and absolutely owing. The last stage is when the debt becomes a judgment debt by reason of a decree of a Court. and applying this test, concluded that the Privy Purse would be property and proceeded to add: As, soon as an Appropriation Act is passed there is established a credit- debt and the outstanding Privy Purse becomes the property of the Ruler in the hands of Government. It is also a sum certain and absolutely payable. Since the effect of the Order of the President was to deprive the, Ruler of his Privy Purse which was his property the learned Chief Justice held that there was infringement of the fundamental right of the Ruler under Article 31 (2). Hegde, J., also pointed out in a separate but concurring judgment that since the right to get the Privy Purse was a legal right "enforceable through the courts", it was undoubtedly property and its deprivation was sufficient to, found a petition based on contravention of Article 31(2). It was also held by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranajirao Shinde, AIR 1968 SC 1053 m that a right to receive cash grant annually from the State was property within the, meaning of that expression in Article 19(1)(f) and clause (2) of Article 31. It was also held by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranajirao Shinde, AIR 1968 SC 1053 m that a right to receive cash grant annually from the State was property within the, meaning of that expression in Article 19(1)(f) and clause (2) of Article 31. The right to pension was also regarded as property for the purpose of Article 19(1) (f) by the decisions of this Court in Deokinanda Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330 , and State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta, (1973) 1 SCC 120 . This Court adopted the same line of reasoning when it said in State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Lid., Ahmedabad, (1974) 4 SCC 656 that : unpaid accumulations represent the obligation of the, employers to the employees and they are the property of the employees". Mathew, J., speaking on behalf of the Court, observed that the obligation to, the employees owned by the employers was "property from the standpoint of the employees". It would, therefore, be seen that Property within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f) and clause (2) of Article 31 comprises every form of property, tangible or intangible, including debts and chooses in action, such as unpaid accumulation of wages, pension, cash grant and constitutionally protected Privy Purse. The debts due and owing from the Life Insurance Corporation in respect of annual cash bonus were, therefore, clearly property of Class III and Class IV employees within the meaning of Article 31, clause (2). And so also was their right to receive annual cash bonus for the period; from the date of commencement of the impugned. Act upto 31st March, 1977, for that was a legal right enforceable through a court of law by issue of a writ of Mandamus, (Vide the observation of Hegde, J., at page 194 in the Privy Purse case.) 12. Prior to the 44th Amendment of the Constitution, which led to the repeal of Article 31, by virtue of the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, a Constitution Bench (Five Judges) of the Apex Court in Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Prior to the 44th Amendment of the Constitution, which led to the repeal of Article 31, by virtue of the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, a Constitution Bench (Five Judges) of the Apex Court in Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. The State of Bombay and others, AIR 1958 SC 328 , held – unpaid wages of an employee, so earned by him, would become a debt due to him from the employer and as such was a property which could be assigned under the law. The observation was made in the context where, under the provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, unclaimed accumulated wages of employees working with several private entities, stood transferred to a body constituted under the said Act. The context being different but the principle of the unpaid wage of an employee, so earned by him, is a property continued to be reiterated, even subsequently, by another Constitution Bench (Five Judges) of the Apex Court in Maharana Shri Jayvantsinghji Ranmalsinghji v. The State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1962 SC 821 . 13. With repeal of Article 31, right to property continued to remain as Constitutional Right, by virtue of insertion of Article 300A. Article 21 – Right to Life 14. A Constitution Bench (Five Judges) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others, (1985) 3 SCC 545 , has held that right to livelihood, which is comprehended in the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be deprived, except according to the procedure established by law. 15. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in Olga Tellis (supra), stand reiterated by a Constitution Bench (Nine Judges) in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & another v. Union of India and others, AIR 2017 SC 4161 , in the following terms: “114. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 195, Chandrachud C.J, while explaining the ambit of Article 21 found a rationale for protecting the right to livelihood as an incident of the right to life. For, as the Court held, deprivation of livelihood would result in the abrogation of the right to life: “148. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. For, as the Court held, deprivation of livelihood would result in the abrogation of the right to life: “148. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the 195 (1985) 3 SCC 545 PART I 111 life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life…”” 16. In M/s Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame & others, (1990) 1 SCC 520 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held: “9. Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three - food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect - physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. For the animal it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect - physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable house but a reasonable home particularly for people in India can even be mud-built thatched house or a mud-built fire-proof accommodation.” 17. That ‘right to life’ includes ‘right to livelihood’ stood settled way back in by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the year 1991. In Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress & others, 1991 Supp(1) SCC 600, while dealing with the constitutional validity of Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952, enabling the employer to terminate services of the employee by issuance of one month notice or payment in lieu thereof, the Court held that: “262. The right to life includes right to livelihood. The right to livelihood therefore cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority. The employment is not a bounty from them nor can its survival be at their mercy. Income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes as much fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications. That will be a mockery of them.” “316. …..It would, further, be held that right to public employment which includes right to continued public employment till the employee is superannuated as per rules or compulsorily retired or duly terminated in accordance with the procedure established by law is an integral part of right to livelihood which in turn is an integral facet of right to life assured by Art. 21 of the Constitution. Any procedure prescribed to deprive such a right to livelihood or continued employment must be just, fair and reasonable procedure. In other words an employee in a public employment also must not be arbitrarily unjustly and unreasonably be deprived of his/her livelihood which is ensured in continued employment till it is terminated in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure...” 18. In other words an employee in a public employment also must not be arbitrarily unjustly and unreasonably be deprived of his/her livelihood which is ensured in continued employment till it is terminated in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure...” 18. It was further held that income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes as much fundamental and fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications. 19. That right to life, enshrined in Article 21, would include right to livelihood, stood reiterated by the Apex Court in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259 , in the following terms: “12. ………Article 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence……….” 20. In Chameli Singh & others v. State of U.P. & another, (1996) 2 SCC 549 (Three Judges), the Apex Court observed: “8. ……….Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilised society.…..” 21. A salaried person by and large depends upon income from salary for his sustenance and sustenance of his family and if he is not paid salary despite working for a long period, will it not affect his life and liberty? This amounts to denial of basic human rights of a citizen and would also amount to deprivation of his life and liberty guaranteed to every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Vide Professor Devendra Mishra v. University of Delhi, 167 (2010) DLT 259). 22. Income of a person is the cornerstone of many of his fundamental rights. This can be interpreted to mean that receiving of income is a foundational feature of the Right to Livelihood. Thereby, it becomes obvious that a deprivation of income on part of the State directly violates the Right to Life under Article 21. 23. The State through its inaction has thwarted self-development of the employees who were deprived of their hard earned money. After all, a man may use his income for purposes other than the three basic needs which have been mentioned in Shantistar (supra). 23. The State through its inaction has thwarted self-development of the employees who were deprived of their hard earned money. After all, a man may use his income for purposes other than the three basic needs which have been mentioned in Shantistar (supra). Thereby the state prevented the welfare of its own citizens which goes against the core objectives of a welfare state like India. 24. There is multiplicity of legislations whereby the state has imposed a duty on varied industries to ensure that their employees enjoy a decent standard of living. Therefore, when the State did not disburse the salaries to its employees despite having the money in its coffers, money which was ready to be disbursed, it was clearly engaging in practicing double standards. 25. From a theological perspective, Dignity of a human being stems from the fact that each person is created in the image of God. Consequentially, it can be said that every human being is entitled to dignity because it is inherent in him. Thereby, the state through its administrative inaction has clearly desecrated the dignity which was inherent in its employees. Thereby, the state has also acted contrary to the provisions of Chapter IV and Chapter IV A of the Constitution of India. 26. It can clearly be seen that none of the three basic needs of man mentioned in Shantistar (Supra) can be acquired without monetary power. Thereby, through its inaction the state has clearly exhibited a lethargic, if not callous, attitude towards disbursal of its mandated duties. Therefore, the inaction of the state clearly enables a violation of the Right to Life as mandated under the Constitution of India. 27. In Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1 , the Apex Court has observed: “30. The Government companies/public sector undertakings being 'states' would be constitutionally liable to respect life and liberty of all persons in terms of Article 21 of the constitution of India. They, therefore, must do so in cases of their own employees. The government of the State of Bihar for all intent and purport is the sole shareholder. The Government companies/public sector undertakings being 'states' would be constitutionally liable to respect life and liberty of all persons in terms of Article 21 of the constitution of India. They, therefore, must do so in cases of their own employees. The government of the State of Bihar for all intent and purport is the sole shareholder. Although in law, its liability towards the debtors of the company may be confined to the shares held by it but having regard to the deep and pervasive control it exercises over the Government companies; in the matter of enforcement of human rights and/or rights of the citizen of life and liberty, the State has also an additional duty to see that the rights of employees of such corporations are not infringed.” “71. The States of India are welfare States. They having regard to the constitutional provisions adumbrated in the Constitution of India and in particular Part IV thereof laying down the Directive Principles of the State Policy and part IVA laying down the Fundamental Duties are bound to preserve the practice to maintain the human dignity.” 28. Further, the Apex Court in Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 262 , has held that the employees have a human right as also a fundamental right under Article 21 which the States are bound to protect. Even where the public sector undertakings were unable to pay the salaries of its employees, the Apex Court directed the State to disburse the same on the basis of the aforesaid principle. We notice that the Court was dealing with a case, where salaries of several employees of instrumentalities owned by the State were not disbursed and on the basis of news paper report a public spirited citizen, a Supreme Court lawyer, had invited attention of the Court to the apathy on the part of the State. 29. Coming to the facts of the present case, An employee, i.e., a salaried person primarily depends upon his income from salary for the purpose of subsistence of his family. In our considered view, if such a salaried person is not paid his due and admissible salary despite having zealously worked for more than six months, the same will obviously affect his life and liberty. In our considered view, if such a salaried person is not paid his due and admissible salary despite having zealously worked for more than six months, the same will obviously affect his life and liberty. This definitely would amount to denial of basic human rights of a citizen and would violate fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed to a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 30. Therefore, by arbitrarily denying wages to the employees for a period of more than six months, right to livelihood was denied to them by the State without following the procedure established by law, which in our considered view, is a blatant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. State - a Model Employer 31. The Apex Court in State of Jharkhand and another v. Harihar Yadav and others, (2014) 2 SCC 114 , observed: “52. Having regard to the position that has emerged, we are compelled to dwell upon the role of the State as a model employer. In Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 449 , Krishna Iyer, J., has stated thus: - "Social justice is the conscience of our Constitution, the State is the promoter of economic justice, the founding faith which sustains the Constitution and the country is Indian humanity. The public sector is a model employer with a social conscience not an artificial person without soul to be damned or body to be burnt." 53 In Gurmail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1991) 1 SCC 189 it has been held that the State as a model employer is expected to show fairness in action. 54. In Balram Gupta v. Union of India and Another, 1987 Supp1 SCC 228 the Court observed that as a model employer the Government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees. 55. In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 the Court has ruled that the main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure the rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. 56. 55. In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 the Court has ruled that the main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure the rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. 56. In Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and another v. State of Assam and others, (2013) 2 SCC 516 while laying emphasis on the role of the State as a model employer, though in a different context, the Court observed: "65…….It should always be borne in mind that legitimate aspirations of the employees are not guillotined and a situation is not created where hopes end in despair. Hope for everyone is gloriously precious and a model employer should not convert it to be deceitful and treacherous by playing a game of chess with their seniority. A sense of calm sensibility and concerned sincerity should be reflected in every step. An atmosphere of trust has to prevail and when the employees are absolutely sure that their trust shall not be betrayed and they shall be treated with dignified fairness then only the concept of good governance can be concretized." “57. If the present factual matrix is tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, there can be no trace of doubt that both the States and the Corporations have conveniently ostracized the concept of "model employer". It would not be wrong to say that they have done so with Pacific calmness, sans vision, shorn of responsibility and oblivious of their role in such a situation. Their action reflects the attitude of emotionlessness, proclivity of impassivity and deviancy with cruel impassibility. Neither of the States nor the Corporations have even thought for a moment about the livelihood of the employees. They have remained totally alien to the situation to which the employees have been driven to. In a State of good governance the Government cannot act like an alien. It has an active role to play. It has to have a constructive and progressive vision………..” 32. The Corporate and Industrial Houses are expected by the Indian State to take measures which provide a decent standard of living to members of the society generally and more specifically, to their employees. It has an active role to play. It has to have a constructive and progressive vision………..” 32. The Corporate and Industrial Houses are expected by the Indian State to take measures which provide a decent standard of living to members of the society generally and more specifically, to their employees. Therefore, the State has the duty to set an example of being a model employer to its employees. If State does itself does not give salary to its employees for their hard work then how can it be expected that the private entrepreneur will take care of their employees. 33. The Apex Court in State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee & others, (2006) 7 SCC 651 , has held that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and the pleasure of the Government and to receive pension is a valuable right of a government servant, is a sell-settled legal proposition. 34. Gratuity has also been held to be a statutory right which cannot be taken away. (Allahabad Bank; All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association; Allahabad Bank Retirees Assn v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association; Allahabad Bank; Controlling Authority, (2010) 2 SCC 44 ). 35. We are pained by the fact that wages were denied to the Nurses and other staff of the Medical College by the State for more than six months without there being any plausible explanation or reason available with the State to justify their act. The attitude of the State is appalling. 36. We notice that State has formulated a Litigation Policy with the avowed object of not only reducing litigation, saving avoidable cost on unproductive litigation, reducing avoidable load on judiciary with respect to Government induced litigation. This is in tune with the mandate of Article 39-A of the Constitution of India, obligating the State to promote equal justice and provide free legal aid. In fact, by virtue of clause 1.4 (d to h) of the State Litigation Policy, the State is under an obligation to take steps to reduce litigation, wherever possible. Now, if the employees are not paid their salaries within time, obviously, they are left with no remedy but to rush to the Courts. 37. Of late, litigation pertaining to employees of the State has increased and it is not that State is the petitioner. Now, if the employees are not paid their salaries within time, obviously, they are left with no remedy but to rush to the Courts. 37. Of late, litigation pertaining to employees of the State has increased and it is not that State is the petitioner. The action assailed is of mis-governance or avoidable omissions on the part of the Government. Why should the State force an employee to litigate in a case where emoluments/salaries, which are undisputed, are not disbursed in time. 38. An employee has a constitutional right to receive salary/emoluments within time, so also State is under a constitutional obligation and duty to disburse the same. 39. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and position of law, in exercise of our writ jurisdiction, we deem it necessary to pass the following directions:- A. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, shall provide a mechanism for enabling the employees to vent out their grievances of non-disbursement of due and admissible wages/salaries/emoluments. And one such mechanism being of setting up a ‘Web Portal’ at the level of the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the concerned Departments, where the employees can lodge their grievances/complaints. Such grievances/complaints shall be processed and adequately responded to within a period of one week. This would facilitate speedy redressal of genuine grievances and prevent unnecessary litigation, clogging the wheels of administration of justice. Such endeavour shall not only be in the spirit of Litigation Policy, framed by the State Government. We see great advantage in the use of information and technology. Not only it would result into effective and efficient redressal of grievances, if any, but also improve efficiency in the affairs of governance of the State. Such endeavour shall not only be in the spirit of Litigation Policy, framed by the State Government. We see great advantage in the use of information and technology. Not only it would result into effective and efficient redressal of grievances, if any, but also improve efficiency in the affairs of governance of the State. B. All the Head of Departments of Government of Himachal Pradesh/Government Institutes/State Instrumentalities to ensure that in future emoluments to all employees of their respective Departments/Institutes are disbursed in time; C. In case of said emoluments not being disbursed on schedule, except in the event of the emoluments being withheld as per law, the State/instrumentality of the State shall be liable to compensate the employees concerned by paying statutory interest or the existing rate for saving bank deposit account provided by the State Bank of India, whichever is higher; D. Immediately thereto, the Head of the Departments/Instrumentality of the State shall hold an inquiry, which shall be completed within a period of 30 days, to ascertain the omission on the part of the concerned person, resulting in delay of disbursement on schedule; and E. Pursuant to the findings of the inquiry, the interest which stands paid to such employee, shall be recovered from the erring officers/officials. We direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to ensure compliance of the above directions and file affidavit within a period of four weeks.