No Justification For Withholding Pensioner's Retiral Benefits Without Holding Departmental Enquiry Before Superannuation Date: Bombay HC
While accepting that the petitioner entered in service on being appointed as Typist on the reserved post for the Scheduled Tribe, and he has not forwarded his caste claim for verification, the Bombay High Court held that when the petitioner was not placed on a supernumerary post, there does not appear to be any justification for withholding the petitioners' retiral benefits.
The Division Bench of Justice A.S Chandurkar and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi observed that “No departmental proceedings were held against the petitioner prior to his superannuation based on which he could be deprived of his pensionary benefits. The impugned communication also does not speak of depriving the petitioner to such retiral benefits. Thus, as the petitioner has superannuated without being placed on a supernumerary post, there is no reason to withhold his pensionary benefits”.
Advocate Rashi A. Deshpande appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Ansuli Deshmukh appeared for the Respondent.
The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner has superannuated as Deputy Manager (Scale II). On the very day, a notice was issued calling upon him to show cause as to why departmental action should not be initiated against him under the United India Insurance Company (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules 2014 for not submitting the Caste Validity Certificate. This lapse/omission according to the respondents constitutes misconduct.
After considering the submission, the Bench referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman [AIR 1991 SC 2010] to note that only show cause notice is issued in the present case on the date of his retirement calling upon the petitioner to explain why departmental action should not be initiated for failure to submit the validity certificate.
Therefore, the mere issuance of such show cause notice would not amount to initiation of the departmental enquiry, added the Bench.
The Bench found from a perusal of Rule 45 of the Pension Scheme that the Gratuity and pensionary benefits can be withheld only if the departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted against the said person on the date of his retirement.
Finding that the petitioner was promoted from time to time and thereafter superannuated, and there was no disciplinary enquiry initiated against him while in service, the Bench held that the question of payment of provisional pension and withholding of the benefits does not arise.
“It is not the case of the respondents that at the time of entry in service, the petitioner played any fraud or obtained a certificate by playing fraud”, added the Bench.
Therefore, observing that the caste claim was not invalidated and no enquiry was initiated till the date of superannuation of the petitioner, the High Court directed the respondents to finalize the pension case of the petitioner within two months from today and release such benefits to the petitioner as per law.
Cause Title: Narendra K. Kumbhare v. Union of India and Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
