Employee can’t claim salary for custody period: HC

Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 8: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that an employee who remained in custody as an under-trial in a criminal case is not entitled to salary and allowances for that period.

Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
This landmark judgment was passed by Justice MA Chowdhary while dismissing a petition filed by Sher Singh, a former employee of the NHPC.
The petitioner had approached the court seeking a direction to treat his jail period from April 2009 to October 2010 as regular service and release full salary and allowances for that time.
He submitted that he was implicated in a false murder case during casual leave and later acquitted by the trial court.
Upon release, he rejoined duty and discovered that he had been suspended during custody without any formal inquiry.
The suspension was revoked in 2011, and the Corporation treated his service as continuous without break, but no salary was paid for the custody period.
After hearing both sides, Justice Chowdhary observed that since the petitioner’s custody was due to a criminal case in which the employer had no involvement, the Corporation cannot be faulted for not paying wages during the period of incarceration.
The court further said that as the petitioner did not perform any duty during that time, he is not entitled to salary or allowances.
The judgment also emphasized that only if the custody was due to departmental proceedings or employer’s action, a different legal position could have applied.
The court concluded that the plea for back wages was misconceived and rejected the same.
Regarding the petitioner’s retirement benefits, counsel for Sher Singh submitted that he has superannuated and requested the Court to direct the Corporation to release his pensionary dues.
However, the Court clarified that such a plea was not part of the present petition and advised the petitioner to make a representation before the Corporation. If not satisfied, he was allowed the liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies.
With these observations, the petition was dismissed.