SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.
Miss Radha Bai, Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Pondicherry represented by its Chief Secretary and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 117 of 1986
Decided on 20-4-1995.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226/227 - Rule 48-B,Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Enquiry - Service of employment - Chief Minister and Union Minister for Tourism that remedial action will be taken she gave appellant submitted a representation to Governor of Tamil Nadu who had taken over administration of Pondicherry by then- In her representation she alleged attempts made to molest her and other misdeeds of officials prayed for intervention to set right matters- A detailed petition was also sent later Governor of Pondicherry in his capacity as Administrator of Pondicherry Administration directed that an enquiry be held into allegations contained in complaint filed before him- authorities failed to give effect to this order- Thereupon appellant moved High Court of Madras Writ Petition and prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to implement orders passed by Governor of Tamil Nadu and Administrator of Union Territory of Pondicherry and for other reliefs- High Court of Madras by its judgment that incomplete and denied relief to appellant- It is thereafter appellant moved this Court by and obtained leave by order This Court ordered expeditious hearing of appeal –Held, Appellant will certainly feel annoyed and ashamed- There is every reason for appellant to feel greatly humiliated- There is bound to be moral indignation or resentment- Even judicial enquiry ordered by highest constitutional functionary in State to investigate matter was rendered futile by concerned officials and for a period no redress or remedy has been rendered to appellant- This is sad indeed appellant entered service - Due to estranged relationship events one after another followed and eventually appellant was removed from service and she was driven from pillar to post to seek redress for wrong done to her- On day when she was removed from service she had qualifying service- She was entitled to pension- Central Civil Services Pension Rules period not exceeding can be added to actual service rendered by a civil servant as period of grace if total qualifying service does not exceed and if it does not take civil servant beyond date of superannuation- In normal course appellant would have attained superannuation only her date of birth being - There are materials available in records to show that appellant was a highly competent hard working sincere and devoted official- She has been referred to as an asset to department- But for estranged relationship and acrimonious battle she would have normally served State till superannuation- There was no impediment therefore- Considering totality of circumstances and non-excusable lapses of administration and in doing complete justice in matter court are of view that it should be declared that appellant was compulsorily retired on attaining age of superannuation and should be afforded pension and all other consequential and incidental benefits on basis that she was compulsorily retired from service She would be entitled to pension and other retirement benefits- Besides appellant should be afforded relief by award of a lump sum compensation for loss of her reputation and agony she had to suffer in long battle which court fix at Rs-3 lacs payable jointly by respondents 1 and 3 within one month from today - Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
PARIPOORNAN, J. :—The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1329 of 1979 of the High Court of Madras, is the appellant herein. This appeal is filed against the Judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 26-10-1983, in pursuant to the special leave granted by this Court on 13-1-1986 in S.L.P. (C) No. 3643 of 1984. There are three respondents in this appeal. They are: The Union Territory of Pondicherry represented by its Chief Secretary, The Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, and Shri D.R. Ramachandran, former Home Minister of Pondicherry.
2. The relevant facts which gave rise to this appeal may be stated. The date of birth of the appellant is 25-8-1934. She was appointed as a Child Welfare Organiser under the Pondicherry State Social Welfare Advisory Board on 21-11-1958. The service of the employees of the Board was merged with the Government service. The employees of the Advisory Board became Government employees. On 11-12-1962 the appellant was appointed as Social Education Organiser in the Development Department, Government of Pondicherry. In 1973, the appellant was Assistant Director of the Social Welfare Department. At that time, the third respondent was the Minister for Social Welfare in the Government of Pondicherry. In that year a protective and shelter home for women arrested under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act was started at Reddiarpalayam by the Social Welfare Directorate. It is the appellants case, that in 1973, she received a report that the above institution was being misused by the third respondent herein with the connivance of the Superintendent, for illegal and immoral purposes. The appellant reprimanded the Superintendent. This infuriated the third respondent and other officers who apprehended that their misdeeds will be exposed. They began teasing the appellant. The appellant was transferred from Pondicherry to Karaikkal. On an enquiry by the Inspector-General of Police on the orders of Lt. Governor conducted in 1976, the Secretary, Local Administration Department was transferred in January, 1977. In 1977, the third respondent again became the Home Minister. He continued to use the womens institutions as before for his immoral activities with the help of some officials. The appellants presence was an irritation to the third respondent and other officials. In September, 1977, some false criminal charges were levelled against the appellant by the said officials and attempts to commit her to prison were made on the ground that she was a lunatic. She demanded an enquiry in the matter. Therefore, she was suspended from service with effect from October 14, 1977. Thereafter, the appellant resorted to fast, and on the assurances of the Chief Minister and the Union Minister for Tourism that remedial action will be taken, she gave up the fast. On 10-7-1978, the appellant submitted a representation to the Governor of Tamil Nadu - Shri Prabhudas Patwari who had taken over the administration of Pondicherry by then. In her representation, she alleged attempts made to molest her and other misdeeds of officials an prayed for intervention to set right the matters. A detailed petition was also sent later. On 22-7-1978, the Governor of Pondicherry, in his capacity as Administrator of Pondicherry Administration, directed that an enquiry be held into the allegations contained in the complaint filed before him. The authorities failed to give effect to this order. Thereupon the appellant moved the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 1329 of 1979 and prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to implement the orders passed by the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the Administrator of the Union Territory of Pondicherry dated 22-7-1978, and for other reliefs. The High Court of Madras by its judgment dated 26-9-1983 held that the order dated 22-7-1978 is incomplete and inexecutable and denied relief to the appellant. It is thereafter, the appellant moved this Court by S.L.P (C) No. 3643 of 1984, an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.