State Can’t Deny Payment Of Retiral Benefits Merely Because College Continued Litigating Over Reinstatement Of Delinquent Lecturer: SC
The Supreme Court asked the Gujarat Government to pay retiral benefits to a delinquent employee whose reinstatement orders were continuously challenged by a Grant-in-Aid Institution.
The Apex Court observed that no exception is provided in the Pension Scheme for the teaching/ non-teaching staff in the Gram Vidyapeeth to enable the State to deny payment of retiral benefits and shift the burden on the Institution.
The Private College covered under the Grant-in-Aid scheme of the State Government had filed the present appeal impugning the orders passed by the High Court. The appellant only pressed the claim regarding liability of the appellant-college to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee.
The Division Bench of Justice J.K.Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal said,“It is not a matter of dispute that the appellant is an institution entitled to Grant-in-Aid and the employees thereof are entitled to pensionary benefits in terms of the aforesaid Scheme.”
Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel represented the Appellant while AOR Swati Ghildiyal represented the Respondents.
The second respondent was appointed as a lecturer by the appellant. On account of certain misconduct, he was issued a chargesheet and was dismissed from service in 1994. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the second respondent preferred an appeal to the Joint Director of Higher Education (appellate authority). The said appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The High Court directed the matter to be heard by appellate authority-respondent no.1. Therafter, the respondent was also directed to be reinstated as the dismissal was found to be an extreme punishment.
The appellant challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court by filing an application . The Single Judge noticing the fact that the private respondent had already superannuated, upheld the order of reinstatement. However, the High Court directed the appellant to pay back wages to the extent of 75%. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant by filing Letters Patent Appeal. The back wages granted to respondent no.2 were set aside and the appellant as well as the State were directed to pay retiral dues to the respondent. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the State as well as the appellant filed Review Petitions and it was directed that the appellant shall be liable to pay the retiral dues. Aggrieved against the direction issued to the appellant to pay retiral dues to the private respondent, the college approached the Apex Court.
Referring to the Pension Scheme for the teaching/ non-teaching staff in the Gram Vidyapeeth, Government of Gujarat, Education Department, Resolution Number GUS/1089-5369/B Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar dated July 13, 1990, the Counsel for the Appellant-College contended that Paragraph 11 of the Scheme provides that the liability to pay pension is on the State Government. The direction given by the High Court in the order passed in the Review Application was not in consonance with the aforesaid provisions.
The State raised the contention that the respondent no.1/appellate authority vide directed reinstatement of the respondent no.2. However, thereafter the college continued litigating, raising frivolous grounds, as a result of which, the State was now sought to be burdened with liability to pay pension to the respondent no.2, who had not actually worked for the requisite period.
At the outset, the Bench observed, “There is no exception provided in the Scheme to enable the State to deny payment of retiral benefits to an employee of the Grant-in-Aid Institution under certain circumstances and shift the burden on the institution”, it added.
The Court noted that there were serious charges against the respondent no.2 which included instigation of students to go on strike, improper behaviour with the co-employees, attempt to pollute the atmosphere in the institution, violation of rules and regulations of the institution and involvement in the activities which may cause damage to the institution. Out of 30 charges, 10 were proved. After inquiry, with a view to maintain discipline in the institution, it was found appropriate that the respondent no.2 be dismissed from service. However, the appellate authority had held that the issues could have been resolved by way of discussion.
It was further noticed that the appellant, keeping in view the discipline in the institution, thought it appropriate to challenge the same. In such circumstances, the Bench said that it cannot be opined that its conduct was such that it should be burdened with the retiral benefits of delinquent employee. Referring to its judgment in Educational Society, Tumsar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others11 as relied by the State, the Bench held, “It is not the opinion of the appellate authority or any Court that the action taken by the appellant against the respondent no.2 was without jurisdiction as was the case in Educational Society, Tumsar and Others (supra).”
Thus, allowing the appeals, the Bench allowed the Review Application filed by the appellant and held that the State, respondent no.1 shall be liable to pay retiral dues to respondent no.2.
Cause Title: Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith v. Government of Gujarat & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 935]
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advoate Nikhil Goel, Advocate Pradhuman Gohil, AOR Taruna Singh Gohil, Advocates Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Rushabh N. Kapadia, Siddharth Singh, Siddhi Gupta
Respondents: Senior Advocates Bhaskar Tanna,Dr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Swati Ghildiyal,Advocates Devyani Bhatt, Dharita Malkan, Alok Kumar, AOR Khushboo Aakash Sheth