1. Compulsory retirement — Tribunal order for fresh enquiry — Subsequent retirement of employee and restitution of house advances. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1098
1996(6) Supreme 164
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
R. Parangusam -Appellant
versus
Chief Electrical Inspector & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9863 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3263 of 1994)
With
Civil Appeal No. 9865 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14996/93)
Decided on 22-7-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondents : V. Krishnamurthy, Advocate.
Important Points
Where an employee has already retired and no detriment was caused to the State, a fresh enquiry is unnecessary. The employee should be granted promotional benefits, pay redetermination, and pensionary arrears on par with juniors promoted pending the enquiry.
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
SERVICE LAW-Order of compulsory retirement from service-Challenged-Tribunal while setting aside order of compulsory retirement remitted matter to Government to conduct enquiry afresh-Appellant has already retired from service-On facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case for conducting a fresh enquiry-Order of Tribunal set aside-Government directed to consider his case for promotion on par with juniors who were promoted pending enquiry.
Held that the advances drawn for construction of the house, allotment of the house in the name of his wife by Housing Board has already been redone. Consequently, there is no detriment caused to the State. Since he had already retired from service, we think, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case for conducting a fresh enquiry as directed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Government is directed to consider his case for promotion on par with the juniors who were promoted pending enquiry, and then grant him promotion if he is found eligible with all consequential reliefs. The Government will also redetermine his national scale of pay on the promotional post and pay the arrears of salary and also pension as if he had retired on promotional post. This action should be taken and payment made within a period of six weeks. (Para 2)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a fresh enquiry is required after the employee's retirement and restitution of financial advances to the State. (Para 2 )
3. Fresh enquiry is unwarranted when the employee has already retired and no detriment is caused to the State. (Para 2 )
4. A fresh enquiry into compulsory retirement is unnecessary if the employee has already retired and no detriment is caused to the State. (Para 2 )
5. Tribunal order set aside — Government directed to grant promotion on par with juniors and pay consequential salary and pension arrears. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. Is a fresh enquiry required for compulsory retirement if the employee has already retired and no detriment is caused to the State?
No, if the employee has already retired from service and any financial detriment, such as house construction advances, has been redone, conducting a fresh enquiry is not warranted. (Para 2 )
7. What are the consequential benefits for an employee whose compulsory retirement is set aside after they have already retired?
The employee is entitled to be considered for promotion on par with juniors promoted pending enquiry, redetermination of the national scale of pay, and payment of salary arrears and pension as if they had retired from the promotional post. (Para 2 )
ORDER
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. We requested Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel to assist the appellant. We have heard the arguments for the State and also Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan. The Tribunal in the impugned order, while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement from service, remitted the matter to the government to conduct the enquiry afresh after giving opportunity to the appellant and based thereon to pass appropriate orders for fixation of the pension etc. It is not in dispute that the appellant has already retired from service. It is also not in dispute that the advances drawn for construction of the house, allotment of the house in the name of his wife by Housing Board has already been redone. Consequently, there is no detriment caused to the State. Since he had already retired from service, we think, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case for conducting a fresh enquiry as directed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Government is directed to consider his case for promotion on par with the juniors who were promoted pending enquiry, and then grant him promotion if he is found eligible with all consequential reliefs. The Government will also redetermine his national scale of pay on the promotional post and pay the arrears of salary and also pension as if he had retired on promotional post. This action should be taken and payment made within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
3. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
Appeals accordingly allowed.
*******
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
R. Parangusam v. Chief Electrical Inspector, 1996(6) Supreme 164
00027
