Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. BHARUCHA AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.
Ramswaroop Masawan, Appellant
Versus
Municipal Council and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 11533 of 1995, D/- 22-4-1998.
Superannuation - Retiral Benefits - The appellant, an Overseer, continued to work beyond the age of superannuation, but the court held that his continuance in service can only be treated as re-employment, and he was not entitled to retiral benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Overseer, continued to work beyond the age of superannuation and sought retiral benefits, which were denied to him.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the appellant's continuance in service after reaching the age of superannuation can only be treated as re-employment, and he was not entitled to retiral benefits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant, who continued to work as an Overseer beyond the age of superannuation, was entitled to retiral benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that at the relevant time, the age of superannuation was 55 years, and the appellant's continuance in service thereafter can only be treated as re-employment, making him ineligible for retiral benefits.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
JUDGMENT :- The appellant was employed by the first respondent Municipal Council as an Overseer. He reached the age of superannuation, which was 55, on 26th January, 1970. He continued to work as an Overseer until 30th July, 1970 when he was served with an order dated 25th January, 1970/12th February, 1970. The order stated that he would retire in the afternoon of 26th January, 1970 having attained the age of 55 years. In the meantime, on 1st April, 1970, the age of superannuation was raised to 58 and retiring Overseers became entitled to 706 retiral benefits.
2. The benefit of service up to the age of 58 years and retiral benefits having been denied to him, the appellant moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by way of a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court stated -
"If the petitioner was allowed to work after 26-1-1970 it is apparent that the period up to which he continued to work was the period of re-employment. The said continuance did not confer any right to receive the pensionary benefits."
3. In our view, the High Court was right. At the relevant time the age of superannuation was 55 years. The appellant stood superannuated on reaching that age and, in law, his continuance in service thereafter can only be treated as re-employment. In the Municipal Council in question no retiral benefits were available to Overseers who retired on 26th January, 1970. Therefore, the appellant could not legitimately make a claim thereto.
4. The appeal is dismissed. No order as costs.
Appeal dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
