NAGPUR: A recent judgment of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court
can serve as a guideline for retired employees. The court ruled in
favour of Union of India which had approached the judiciary against
gratuity claims of two of its former employees for getting added pension
benefits. "The retired employees, on the basis of their meritless,
unreasonable and excessive claim, cannot be allowed to make money and
enrich themselves unjustly by causing undue financial loss to the state
exchequer," a division bench comprising justices Bhushan Dharmadhikari and Ashok Bhangale ruled.
Two city based government employees working with the Postal Department - Venkatraman Rajgopalan and Mukund Paranjape
- retired on superannuation on the afternoon of March 31, 1995. They
applied for enhanced gratuity claims and other retirement benefits from
the government which came into effect from April 1, 1995. However, it
was rejected on the grounds that these benefits would be applicable to
them if they had retired on or after this date. The senior citizen duo
then approached Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT), Mumbai Bench camp at Nagpur. They pleaded that they should be
deemed in service till midnight of March 31 and retired on next day.
The ministry of communication, however, opposed the move contending
that the respondents retired on March 31 and not on April 1, and hence
are not entitled to the benefits. However, the full bench of CAT decided
in favour of the duo on October 15, 1999. It ruled that a government
servant completing the age of superannuation on March 31, 1995, and
relinquishing charge of his office in the afternoon of that day is
deemed to have effectively retired from service with effect from April
1, 1995.
The ministry then moved the judiciary challenging the tribunal's order in 2000. It cited Karnataka High Court
verdict stating that "the date of retirement is the last date of the
month in which the government servant retires and the gratuity is to be
calculated as per rules in force as on that date".
The judges
observed that Rajgopalan was born on March 3, 1937, while Paranjape on
March 29, 1937, and both of them retired on March 31, 1995. "But law
clearly lay down that their date of retirement and last working day has
to be the same. Due to Rule 5(2) of Pension Rules, they could continue
till March 31; which in reality was beyond their actual completion of
the age of superannuation. Legally, respondents retired on the last
working day," they stated.
The court before quashing CAT's order
stated that such benefits which were available with effect from the
later operative date - April 1, 1995, but wrongly granted by the
tribunal to the respondents who retired with effect from the previous
date, were not only undeserved and unwarranted, but also were
detrimental to the state exchequer/revenue.
Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
good judgement
ReplyDelete