Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU KASHMIRAND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.
Rajinder Singh Gill – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and another – Respondent
SWP No. 366/2007 c/w SWP No. 705/2003
Decided On : 09-08-2023
Compulsory Retirement - Service Benefits - SWP No. 366/2007 - Pension Regulations - Departmental Inquiry - Proportionate Pension - Post Retiral Benefits
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in the CRPF, was dismissed from service in 1997, reinstated in 2000, and compulsorily retired in 2004. The petitioner sought proportionate pension and post-retiral benefits, challenging the orders of dismissal and retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to proportionate pension and post-retiral benefits as per the initial order of compulsory retirement. The subsequent amendment denying pension was set aside, and the authorities were directed to release the benefits within two months.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the orders of dismissal and compulsory retirement, entitlement to proportionate pension, and the validity of the subsequent amendment denying pension benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to pension and post-retiral benefits as per the initial order of compulsory retirement. The subsequent amendment denying pension after a lapse of more than one year was set aside.
Final Decision: The impugned order denying pension benefits was set aside, and the authorities were directed to release the proportionate pension and post-retiral benefits in favor of the petitioner within two months.
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that he has instructions not to proceed further with the writ petition bearing SWP No. 705/2003. His statement is taken on record.
2. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, SWP No. 705/2003, shall stand dismissed as not pressed.
3. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.
SWP No. 366/2007
1. Through the medium of instant petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
B. Writ of certiorari for quashing the order of respondent No. 2 bearing No.VIII-6/2005 dated 23.09.2005 again being illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and speaks about the working efficiency of the then respondent No. 2.
C. Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner on duty by treating the aforesaid orders dated 31.08.2004 & 23.09.2005 as non-est and also grant all the consequential benefits
Or in the alternative
D. Writ of mandamus directing respondents to settle, release and pay proportionate pension and also all other full post retiral benefits to the petitioner along with penal rate of interest.”
2. The background facts those stem out from perusal of instant petition are that petitioner joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), as Constable on 12.08.1991; upon which he was provided enrollment No.910840126 and was adjusted in 84 Bn of CRPF. While serving in the Belt Force, in the month of March 1997, based upon a deep-rooted conspiracy he was falsely implicated in a case on the alleged charges of disobedience, found upon the influence of liquor and absented from duty without permission. A Departmental inquiry was conducted. He was held guilty and accordingly, dismissed from services vide order dated 06.06.1997 w.e.f. 06.06.1997, and by that time he had rendered 5 years 9 months and 24 days total service.
3. Being aggrieved by order of dismissal dated 06.06.1997, petitioner challenged the same in SWP No. 982/1997.The said petition was allowed, quashing order of dismissal. Thereafter, petitionerin terms of order dated 29.02.2000, was reinstated in service w.e.f. 09.02.2000.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance to the judgment dated 08.11.1999 passed by this Court, the respondent-department again in April, 2000 started Departmental inquiry against the petitioner which culminated into passing of an order dated 27.08.2000, whereby the order of dismissal was changed to withholding of an increment for one year w.e.f., 02.09.2000 to 01.09.2001 with cumulative effect, but no decision with respect to the intervening period i.e., 06.06.1997 to 09.02.2000 was taken by the respondent-department. It is stated that during the pendency of SWP No. 705/2003, the petitioner was transferred to 152 Bn. of the Force and while serving there in the month of February 2004, again petitioner was falsely implicated on the alleged charges of found under the influence of liquor and absented from duty without permission and ultimately another Departmental inquiry was conducted and without providing an opportunity of being heard as well as to cross-examining the witnesses produced against him, the alleged charges were shown proved without any evidence and vide order dated 31.08.2004 passed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was compulsory retired from service with an observation that the petitioner shall be provided pension and other post retiral benefits and by that time after reinstatement the petitioner had rendered 4 years, 06 months and 22 days of service.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after retirement, vide communication dated 23.09.2004, petitioner was asked to fill the pension papers for processing his pension case, however, after submitting the same, neither pension nor any other post ret
The main legal point established is that an employee is entitled to pension and post-retiral benefits as per the initial order of compulsory retirement, and subsequent amendments denying such benefit....
The appellate authority must provide a reasoned decision considering all arguments in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness.
Retrospective penalties for compulsory retirement are impermissible and must align with the order date past which no previous penalty exists.
Compulsory retirement should be based on public interest, and proper procedures should be followed, avoiding shortcuts to avoid departmental inquiries.
Dismissal after imprisonment for the same offense constitutes double punishment; the period of dismissal must be treated as qualifying service for pension computation.
The railway administration cannot withhold pensionary benefits in the absence of any pending judicial or departmental proceedings against the employee, as per Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension)....
Disciplinary proceedings must be initiated before retirement to continue post-retirement; unilateral alteration of service records without notice violates natural justice.
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
