Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1991 Supreme(Cal) 189

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Mahitosh Majumdar, J.
Suryadeb Ghosh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Order Nos. 4431 (W) & 4432 (W) of 1988
Decided On : April 8, 1991

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Maharaj Sinha and Arunava Ghosh for the Petitioner
No one for the Respondents

Withholding of pension and other financial benefits without initiating disciplinary proceedings and in violation of constitutional rights is unconstitutional and illegal.

Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - PENSION - WITHHOLDING - LEGALITY - PENSION AND GRATUITY BENEFITS - RIGHT TO LIFE - ARTICLES 14, 21 AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - VIOLATION - SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE - DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT BENEFITS RULES 1971 - RULE 10 - INTERPRETATION - FAIRNESS AND JUSTNESS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ARBITRARINESS - REASONABLENESS - NATURAL JUSTICE - ADMINISTRATIVE STATE ACTIONS - CONTRACTUAL MATTERS - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - SCOPE AND PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD - EMPLOYMENT - INCOME - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION - INTERPRETATION - RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY - BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a former General Manager of the District Industries Centre, Darjeeling, filed a writ petition challenging the withholding of his pension and other retirement benefits by the respondents. The petitioner retired from service on July 31, 1986, and had submitted his travelling allowance bills, application for commutation of pension, and other claims. Despite orders issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Cottage & Small Scale Industries Department, and other authorities, the respondents failed to take any steps to release the petitioner's retirement benefits. The petitioner contended that the withholding of his pension and other benefits violated Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the respondents' actions in withholding the petitioner's pension and other financial benefits were unconstitutional and violated the petitioner's rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India. The court found that the respondents had not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner during his service career or after his retirement, as required under the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1971 and the West Bengal Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules 1971. The court further held that the respondents' actions were arbitrary and unreasonable, and that they had failed to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the proposed withholding of his benefits.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents could withhold the petitioner's pension and other financial benefits without initiating disciplinary proceedings against him during his service career or after his retirement. 2. Whether the withholding of pension or other financial benefits in the present case involved a clear breach of Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India. 3. Whether the respondents were otherwise competent to act contrary to the orders issued in favor of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondents could not withhold the petitioner's pension and other financial benefits without initiating disciplinary proceedings against him during his service career or after his retirement, as required under the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1971 and the West Bengal Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules 1971. 2. The court held that the withholding of pension or other financial benefits in the present case involved a clear breach of Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India, as it amounted to deprivation of property and livelihood without the authority of law. 3. The court held that the respondents were not competent to act contrary to the orders issued in favor of the petitioner, as such actions were ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to make available all the pensionary benefits and other financial benefits to the petitioner within one month from the date of communication of the order. The court also awarded costs to the petitioner in the amount of 50 G.M.S. and directed that the benefits which would have been accrued to the petitioner should be paid, along with 12% interest on the total accrual amount from the date of accrual of the cause of action.

Judgement Key Points

Petitioner was General Manager, District Industries Centre, Darjeeling, retired on July 31, 1986, without any charge-sheet or show cause notice during service. [9000349720001] (!)
Petitioner submitted travelling allowance bills for Rs. 7656.32 from September 1984 to May 1986, application for commutation of pension on November 5, 1986, and reminders for retirement benefits. [9000349720001] (!)
Memo No. 9252-COT/Estt dated September 2, 1987 directed grant of superannuation pension and gratuity to petitioner, with further instructions on proceedings to follow. (!) (!) (!)
Despite directions, respondent No. 2 did not release benefits; petitioner sent reminders on January 9, 1988 and March 10, 1988. (!) [9000349720004] (!) (!) (!)
Accountant General authorized final provident fund payment of Rs. 21,674/- vide memo dated November 4, 1987/November 9, 1987. [9000349720001] (!)
Respondent No. 2 sanctioned 182 days unutilised leave salary (memo No. 578/Pension dated November 17, 1987), group insurance claim of Rs. 800/- (memo No. 41 dated December 1, 1987), and provisional pension Rs. 14,376/- and gratuity Rs. 40,030/- (memo No. 629/Estt dated December 16, 1987). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
No disciplinary proceedings initiated during service under West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971, or after retirement under West Bengal Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1971, particularly Rule 10(1)(b). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [9000349720009]
Withholding pension, gratuity, and benefits without proceedings violates Articles 14, 21, and 300A of Constitution, amounting to deprivation of property and livelihood without authority of law. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred][9000349720006][9000349720009][9000349720010][9000349720012][9000349720015][9000349720018]
Right to pension and retirement benefits is property; cannot be withheld arbitrarily without reasonable opportunity to defend or compliance with rules. [9000349720006][9000349720009][9000349720010]
Actions arbitrary, unreasonable, lacking natural justice; judicial review permissible for irrationality, illegality, procedural impropriety. [9000349720009][9000349720010]
Right to life under Article 21 includes right to livelihood, human dignity, basic necessities; deprivation must follow fair, just, reasonable procedure established by law. [9000349720009][9000349720010][9000349720012][9000349720015][9000349720016][9000349720017]
Article 300A prohibits deprivation of property without authority of reasonable law; applies to withholding benefits post-retirement. [9000349720006][9000349720009][9000349720013][9000349720014][9000349720015]
Respondents failed to file affidavit-in-opposition despite court directions; no appearance, leading to ex parte decision. [9000349720005] (!)
Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to pay all pensionary and financial benefits within one month, with 12% interest from accrual date, and costs of 50 G.M.S. [Final Decision] (!) [9000349720017]

JUDGMENT

The writ application is directed against the withholding of pension and gratuity despite order being No. 9252-COT/Estt dated September 2, 1987 issued by the Assistant

__________

Con-40/86

Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Cottage & Small Scale Industries Department, non-payment of T.A. bills submitted on the basis of Tour Diary duly approved by the joint Director, Industries (S.S.I.) Cottage Small Scale Industries, non-payment of provident Fund despite orders passed by the Accountant General, West Bengal under memo No. Fund-IV/4520/FP/R/1186 dated November 4, 1987, illegal withholding of un-utilised Leave Salary for 182 days sanctioned by the Director, Cottage & Small Scale Industries Department, illegal withholding of claim under State Employees Group Insurance-cum-Savings Scheme, 1983 duly sanctioned vide order No. 41 dated December 1, 1987 by the Director of Cottage & Small Scale Industries, non-consideration of application dated November 5, 1986 for commutation of 1/3rd Pension etc.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :

The petitioner at all material times was the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Darjeeling before the dace of his retirement on the forenoon of July 31, 1986. Till the date of his retirement from service, the petitioner was neither charge-sheeted nor he was served with any show cause notice. The petitioner, before his retirement, submitted Travelling Allowance bills to the extent of Rs. 7656.32P. towards travelling expenses for the period between September 1984 and May 1986. The petitioner made application for commutation of Pension on November 5, 1986. The petitioner made several reminders for payment of retirement benefits and the pending T.A. Bills. By Memo No. 9252-COT(Estt) dated September 2, 1987 the Assistant Secretary, Cottage & Small Scale

_________

Con-40/86

Industries Department informed the Director of Cottage & Small Industries, respondent No. 2 herein that the superannuation pension and gratuity be granted to the petitioner and arrangement for sanction of pecuniary benefits to the petitioner may be made. The said memo dated September 2, 1987 reads thus :

"Sub: Allegation against Shri S.D. Ghosh, Ex-General Manager, District Industries Centre, Darjeeling grant of pensionary benefits to him-instruction regarding. I am directed to address you on the above subject and to say that this Department is of opinion that superannuation pension and gratuity maybe granted to Shri S.D. Ghosh, Ex-General Manager, District Industries Centre, Darjeeling.

2. Arrangement may, therefore, be made for sanction of pecuniary benefits to Shri Ghosh at an early date.

3. Regarding drawal of proceedings against him on the basis of allegations received, further instructions of this Department will follow."

3. Despite the said memo issued by the Assistant Secretary, the respondent No. 2 did not take any steps whatsoever for payment of the retirement benefits. The petitioner, by letter dated January 9, 1988 sent a reminder to the respondent No. 2 but was not reply to. The petitioner was informed by memo No. Fund-IV/IND/FP/D/662 dated November 9, 1987, the Accountant General, West Bengal informed the concerned authorities that the final payment of Provident fund amounting to Rs. 21,674/- has been issued in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 issued a memo being No. 578/Pension dated November 17, 1987 inter alia, directing that the petitioner is entitled to 182 days leave and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Darjeeling was asked to dispose of the same. The Respondent No. 2 issued another memo No. 41 dated December 1, 1987 to the following effect :

"Subject : Claims under the West Bengal State Government Employees Group Insurance-cum-Savings Scheme 1983 claim due to cessation of employment on retirement or for reasons other than death of S.D. Ghose at the time of cessation, General Manager, DIC, Darjeeling Office Directorate of Cottage & Small Scale Industries, W. Beng

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1991 Supreme(Cal) 189

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTAMahitosh Majumdar, J.Suryadeb Ghosh - PetitionerVersusThe State of West Bengal & Ors. - RespondentsCivil Order Nos. 4431 (W) & 4432 (W) of 1988 Decided On : April 8, 1991

Withholding of pension and other financial benefits without initiating disciplinary proceedings and in violation of constitutional rights is unconstitutional and illegal.

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Mahitosh Majumdar, J.
Suryadeb Ghosh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Order Nos. 4431 (W) & 4432 (W) of 1988
Decided On : April 8, 1991