The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to receive salary is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution, and the State has a duty to ensure timely disbursement of salaries to its employees.

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. 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). 'P