Back
A. S. CHANDURKAR, JITENDRA JAIN
Ramchandra Bapu Nirmale – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jitendra Jain, J.
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged an order dated 10th October 2022 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) dismissing Original Application No.316 of 2021 filed by the Petitioner. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Respondents whereby in calculating the pension of the Petitioner, the punishment imposed by reduction of salary in equivalent grade in 3 stages till the date of the retirement has been reduced for computing last drawn pay.
2. Briefly the facts are as under :
The Petitioner was employed with the Respondents as a Medical Officer, Group-A for the period from 20th December 1978 to 31st August 2008, when he retired. On 20th August 1994, a notice was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent alleging that the Petitioner is taking Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) and at the same time doing private service. An enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner and he was held guilty of the said charge vide enquiry report dated 9th February 1998. On 31st March 2008, an order came to be passed imposing punishment. The operative portion of the punishment reads thus (o
The punishment order should strictly adhere to the requirements of the relevant disciplinary rules, and any reduction in pay scale should only apply during the period of employment and not for pensio....
The court established that the increments earned during a penalty period must be restored upon its expiry when the penalty order specifies no postponement of future increments.
A person who approaches the Court for claiming his rights cannot be made to suffer by reducing his pension. The pension is neither a bounty nor a charity as held by the Supreme Court from time to tim....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reduction in pension should be considered by the authority imposing the penalty at the time of imposition, and failure to do so would amou....
Pension fixed on higher pay scale granted by competent authority and continued for decades cannot be reduced retrospectively after retirement due to delay, absence of notice, and violation of natural....
The court found the punishment imposed on the petitioner to be shockingly disproportionate, emphasizing the necessity for procedural fairness and continuity of service after wrongful termination.
Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rules is not applicable to cases where the misconduct in question occurred while the petitioner was in service and departmental proceedings had already been initiated agains....
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible unless there is evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, and incentives granted for specific service conditions do not constitute sa....
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
