Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
M.S. Sonak, Bharati H Dangre, JJ.
Ramakant Krishna Malik - Appellant
Versus
State Of Goa - Respondent
Writ Petition (Filing) No. 61 of 2021
Decided On : 11-01-2021
Vithal Naik, Advocate, D.J. Pangam, Advocate, Ankita Kamat, Advocate
The right to pension is protected under Article 300A of the Constitution and cannot be denied without legal authority. The dispensation of requirements in peculiar circumstances may be considered.
Headnote:
Pensionary Benefits - Delayed Release - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1965 - The court directed the release of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, a retired employee, after considering the unjustified delay in making the payments, regularization of unauthorized absence, and the requirement of submitting an indemnity bond to assure the authorities of consequences in a domestic violence case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired employee, sought the release of pension and other retiral benefits due to unjustified delay in payments, regularization of unauthorized absence, and non-release of provisional pension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's service record was unblemished except for an order of suspension due to alleged unauthorized absence, which was later revoked and regularized. The court also noted the non-release of retiral benefits stemming from matrimonial strife and the apathetic attitude of the Department.
Issues: The issues included the delay in releasing retiral benefits, the requirement of submitting an indemnity bond in a domestic violence case, and the non-release of provisional pension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to pension is protected under Article 300A of the Constitution and cannot be denied, especially in the absence of a legal authority. It also emphasized the dispensation of the requirement for submitting a joint photograph in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition, directed the release of pensionary benefits within 8 weeks, and did not order the release of provisional pension.
JUDGMENT
Bharati H. Dangre, J. - The petitioner, a retired employee of the respondent no.2, Public Works Department, Goa, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seek following reliefs :
"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or writ in nature of the Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 and 3 to release the Pension and other retiral benefits along with interest @14% thereupon due to unjustified delay in making the said payments.
b) Issue a Writ of mandamus or in nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 and 3 to release arrears of salary and other allowances in terms of the Order dated 02/06/2020 treating the period of suspension as period spent on duty and further regularizing the period of unauthorized absence.
c) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition issue an appropriate Order directing the Respondents to release the provisional pension within a week."
2. Shorn of the minute details of the service record of the petitioner, a few dates need a mention. The petitioner was recruited, by an appointment order dated 10/07/1991 in the post of "Helper" by the respondent No.2 and it is his contention that he served the said Department with an unblemished service record barring one adverse action proposed against him, till he retired on attaining an age of superannuation on 30/04/2020. The only blemish in his service record is an order of suspension issued to him on 12/12/2016 on the ground of alleged unauthorised absence from service. The absence has been justified by the petitioner by stating that on account of the matrimonial discord which he faced at his home front, he was mentally disturbed, constraining him to be not attendant on duties. On a representation being made to the Department, by order dated 14/08/2018, the suspension order came to be revoked by exercising the powers conferred by clause (C) of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1965. Pursuant to the said order, he resumed his duties w.e.f. 16/08/2018. The Department itself on 02/06/2020 was pleased to regularize the unauthorized absence of the petitioner and took a decision not to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against him for the period of his absence. By the very said order issued by the Principal Chief Engineer of the respondent No.2, the period of suspension of the petitioner from 12/12/2016 to 14/08/2018 came to be treated as period spent on duty and it was directed that he shall be paid full pay and allowances for the said period subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already availed by him during the period of suspension. His period of absence from 03/06/2016 to 11/02/2016 was also regularized as per the leave Rules in force. By passing of the said order, the fraction of the petitioner's service which was interrupted came to be regularized resulting in rendering continuous service from 10/07/1991 till he attended the age of superannuation on 30/04/2020.
3. The grievance raised by the petitioner however pertains to the non-release of his retiral benefits and the aforesaid predicament is not a reason for denial of his retiral benefits. The non-payment is stemmed from his matrimonial strife and though prior to 6 months of his retirement, he had forwarded the necessary papers so as to enable the Department to work out his retiral benefits, in terms of the the CCS Rules (Pension Rules), till the institution of the petition, and to be precise, on 01/12/2020, he was denied the retiral benefits and though more than period of 6 months has expired, no provisional pension is released in his favour. The correspondence placed on record reflect that on 18/03/2020 the pension papers of the petitioner came to be remitted back by the office of Directorate of Accounts, Panaji to his parent Department by seeking certain clarifications, one of which pertained to his period of unauthorised absence. Another objection was in respect of furnishing single photograph in Form No.III and
