Kerala HC Stays Government Order For Deferment Of Salaries Of State Government Employees: Says Salary Comes Within The Scope Of Article 300A

Must Read

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Follow us

The Kerala Government on the 24th of April issued an order facilitating the reduction of six days of the salary of government employees who earn above Rs.20,000 for the next five months owing to the financial crisis it was suffering due to the domino effect caused by disasters it had experienced in the past year.

The order, however, did not apply to those employees who had contributed one month’s salary to the CM’s Disaster Relief Fund. The writ petition challenging the order was heard by Justice Bechu Kurian of the Kerala High Court.

Grounds For Challenge

The counsels for the petitioners, in summary, put forth two significant challenges to the order passed by the State’s government.

Firstly, the government order was violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Article 300A of the Constitution does not allow the property of any person to be taken away without authority. The petitioners contended that the impugned order had no legal authority to support its issuance. Further, the apex Court has held that money also comes within the scope of ‘property’ in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde.

Secondly, the petitioners contended that the right to receive salary came under Article 21 of the Constitution. They argued that the State Government were rubbing salt in the wounds of those government employees leading the fight against the spread of the virus in Kerala and have been working tirelessly for the last month to do so.

The petitioners also drew the attention of the court to the Kerala Services Rules, which gave the government employees a statutory right to their salaries.

The Epidemic Diseases Act And The Disaster Management Act: A Shield?

Sections 38 and 39 of the Disaster Management Act allow the State Government to ensure the cooperation of all its departments during times of disaster and impose certain duties on the departments.

The Advocate General, CP Sudhakara Prasad referred to Sections 38 and 39 of the Disaster Management Act as the legal authority which allowed the State Government to issue such an order. He also argued that Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act allowed the government to pass such orders when it found that the current law was insufficient during the breakout of an epidemic virus.

The Court’s Ruling

After considering the arguments of both parties, Justice Kurian found that the executive order indeed had no legal authority for its backing as there was no express provision in any of the enactments referred to be the Advocate General which allowed the state government to issue orders pertaining to the salary of its employees.

Justice Kurian observed that the right to property could not be taken away by a mere executive order. He drew a parallel between pensions and salaries, stating that pensions were “deferred salaries” and they could not be withheld without the authority of law. Therefore the same would apply to salaries because salary could prima facie be regarded as property under Article 300A of the Constitution. He stated that salaries were also a part of the “conditions of service” enshrined in Article 309 of the Constitution.

Justice Kurian also found the term “financial difficulty” to be insufficient grounds for the government to issue orders for deferment of salary. Justice Kurian in his order stated,

However laudable and appreciable, the action of the State may be in its fight against the pandemic, when this Court is called upon to determine an issue which has far-reaching legal consequences and which affects the vested right of its citizens, this Court cannot ignore the legal framework in which our society revolves.

Accordingly, he stayed the operation of the government order for two months and scheduled the next hearing of the writ petition for the 20th of May, 2020.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -