SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 769

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
A. Subramaniam – Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Salem & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 34889 of 2014
Decided On : 18-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Siva Shanmugam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, S. Anitha, Special Government Pleader, R2, L.P. Shanmugasundaram, Advocate.

Regularized suspension period to be considered as qualifying service for calculating terminal benefits in a non-pensionable service.

Headnote:

Suspension - Qualifying Service - The court held that the regularized period of suspension should be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating terminal benefits in a non-pensionable service.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant in a Co-operative Bank, was acquitted in a criminal case and subsequently allowed to retire. The petitioner's grievance was that the period of suspension was not considered as qualifying service for determining terminal benefits.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the regularized suspension period should be considered as qualifying service for calculating terminal benefits, and directed the respondents to settle the same in favor of the petitioner within twelve weeks.

Issues: The issue was whether the regularized period of suspension should be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating terminal benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in a non-pensionable service, the qualifying services should be taken into consideration for calculating terminal benefits, and thus directed the respondents to include the regularized suspension period as qualifying service.

Final Decision: The impugned resolution was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records pertaining to the impugned resolution bearing NA.KA.No.431/2013 SA.PA. dated 23.07.2014 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.)

1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to count the period of suspension for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for settlement of terminal benefits is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the second respondent/Central Co-operative Bank. He was promoted as Senior Assistant and a Criminal Case was registered against him in Crime No.8/90 on the file of the CCIW, CID with an allegation of misappropriation and conspiracy. The criminal case admittedly ended with an order of acquittal. The petitioner was placed under suspension and no charge memorandum was issued. Even during the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was reinstated into service and subsequently, reached the age of Superannuation and allowed to retire from service on 31.05.2009.

3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the period of suspension though regulated, was not taken into consideration as qualifying services for the purpose of determining the terminal benefits to be paid to the writ petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Regional Joint Registrar also rejected the same.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case. The departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated by placing the petitioner under suspension was revoked and thereafter, no charge memorandum was issued and the petitioner was allowed to retire from service. That apart, the period of suspension was also regularized as leave eligible. When the period of suspension was regularized, then the petitioner is entitled for calculation of the said period as qualifying service for the purpose of determining the terminal and other benefits due to the petitioner on his retirement. Admittedly, the services in a Co-operative Bank is a non-pensionable service. Thus, the qualifying services are to be taken into consideration for calculating the terminal benefits.

5. In the present case, the period of suspension, which was regularized by the authorities were not taken into consideration and thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of an opinion that the petitioner is entitled for reckoning of the regularized suspension period as qualifying services for the purpose of calculating the terminal and other consequential benefits on his retirement.

7. Thus, the respondents are directed to calculate the regularized period of suspension from 24.07.1990 to 07.01.1992 (533 days) as qualifying services for the purpose of calculating the terminal and other benefits to be paid to the writ petitioner on his retirement and accordingly, settle the same in favour of the writ petitioner within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. If any amount of terminal benefits has already been paid to the writ petitioner, the said amount is to be deducted from the revised calculation to be made pursuant to the orders passed in this writ petition.

9. With this direction, the impugned resolution in Na.Ka.No.431/2013 Sa.Pa dated 23.07.2014 on the file of the first respondent is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top