Recoveries from terminal benefits post-retirement are impermissible without explicit legal authority, as per established judicial precedents.

ORDER :

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated13.01.2020, of the 2nd respondent, whereunder a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- was deducted from the petitioner's terminal benefits towards unimplemented punishment of stoppage of increment, as illegal and invalid and for consequential direction to refund the said amount along with 18% interest.

2. Heard both side counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

3. The summary of facts necessary for deciding the issue raised in the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent corporation, on 07.08.1987, and promoted as Special Grade Conductor. Whileso, the petitioner due to certain health issues opted for voluntary retirement from service. The petitioner was permitted to voluntarily retire from service vide order dated 31.12.2019, with effect from 30.11.2019. The petitioner while in service was proceeded departmentally for certain misconduct, committed by him and a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect was imposed on him. As the petitioner retired from service even before the punishment could be implemented, a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- towards unimplemented punishment was deducted from the petitioner's terminal benefits. Aggrieved by such recovery from his terminal benefits, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

4. The respondents in their counter, stated that they were entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,26,000/- towards unimplemented punishment as per Rule 4 (1)(e) of the COMMON SERVICE RULES . The respondents further submitted that in the absence of any guidelines with regard to the recovery of amount towards unimplemented punishment in the certified standing orders, they were well within their rights to invoke the COMMON SERVICE RULES . In support of the said contention, the respondents relied on explanation to Rule 1(C) proviso (3) of COMMON SERVICE RULES . The respondents hence prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

5. The facts narrated above are undisputed. The nub of the issue is whether the recovery of Rs.1,26,000/- made by the respondents from the petitioner's terminal benefits is valid and sustainable.

6. In my view the issue raised in the writ petition regarding the recovery of the unimplemented punishment post the petitioner's retirement, from his retiral benefits is no longer res integra.

7. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this court as early as in 2017, under identical factual situation and with regard to the transport corporation, though a different Division, settled the law in W.A.(MD) No's. 465 (batch) of 2013, vide its order dated 30.06.2017. The very same contentions were raised by the respondents, but the Hon'ble Division Bench repelled the same. While dealing with the applicability of Rule 4(1)(e) of the COMMON SERVICE RULES , which rule is relied on by the respondents also, the Hon'ble Division Bench after holding that it was only the certified standing order that was applicable and not the COMMON SERVICE RULES , held as follows:

“5............Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the orders passed by the Management, recovering three times the monetary value equivalent to the amount of increment, are without jurisdiction, as there is no such provision in the Certified Standing Orders, enabling the Management to pass such orders. Therefore, on that ground, the impugned orders are required to be set aside.”

8. The respondents in order to overcome the above judgment submitted that in the absence of any guideline regarding recovery of unimplemented punishment, in the Certi