Why not paying to Krishnakishore ? CAT questions AP govt

By Newsmeter Network  Published on  1 Feb 2020 7:53 AM GMT
Why not paying to Krishnakishore ? CAT questions AP govt


  • Chief Secretary given two weeks for explanation

Hyderabad: Non-payment of salary to Jasti Krishnakishore has once again come to light as Central Administration Tribunal (CAT) questioned the Andhra Pradesh government and asked for an explanation within two weeks.

The CAT on January 24 issued orders to the YSRCP government to release payment to Krishnakishore, an I-T Department official and CEO of AP Economic Development Board (EDB). The CAT had questioned the State Government on why it did not honour its order and sought an explanation within two weeks, said an official. The CAT also asked the Chief Secretary to submit an affidavit in this regard.

The YS Jagan Mohan Reddy-led government suspended Krishnakishore and instituted ACB and CID probes into his activities.

The bench, comprising CAT Chairman Justice Lingala Narasimha Reddy and member BV Sudhakar, was hearing the petition filed by Krishnakishore, who challenged the government decision over his suspension.

Niraj Malhotra, the advocate of Krishnakishore, told the Bench that despite CAT order, the government had not paid his salary. The Bench contended "our orders not implemented for six weeks. When we asked the Chief Secretary to appear before the Bench, the state government started the process of paying salary."

Malhotra requested the Bench to cancel deputation of Krishnakishore and allow him to return to I-T Department. The advocate further said that his client was promoted as Principal Commissioner (I-T) and his batch-mates had all assumed charge of their respective positions.

The government advocate Prakash Reddy urged the Bench to adjourn the hearing by another week as he required time to study the case.

Reacting to this, Malhotra informed that it was part of the government’s delay tactics. The appointment of a senior advocate a day before the hearing shows how irresponsible the government was in this case, he said.

The Bench also observed that it was not good on the part of the government to keep an official, who is on deputation, idle and without pay.

Next Story
Share it