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

2022 Supreme(Tri) 293

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Harka Bahadur Thapa (Retired Warder) - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura And 3 Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) 347 of 2022
Decided On : 11-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, GA, Mr. P. Saha, Advocate, Mr. B. Majumder, C.G.C, for the Respondent

A retired employee exonerated from disciplinary proceedings is entitled to full payment of withheld benefits, including salary, pension, and related benefits from the employer.

Headnote:(A) Writ of Mandamus - Payment of arrears of salary and service benefits - The court directed the respondents to issue full payment of gratuity, leave encashment, pension, and associated benefits to a retired Government employee exonerated from a disciplinary proceeding after retirement. (Paras 1, 3, 7, 9)

(B) Employment and Promotion - Entitlement to benefits post-exoneration - Once the petitioner was cleared of charges, he was entitled to the benefits that were previously withheld due to pending disciplinary actions. (Paras 8, 9)

(C) Disciplinary Proceedings - Duration and effects on service benefits - The court noted that the delay in granting the service benefits was solely due to the ongoing disciplinary proceedings and exoneration warranted compensation of entitled benefits. (Paras 3, 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired Government employee, faced delayed benefits due to a disciplinary proceeding initiated prior to retirement. After being exonerated, reliefs sought were not granted, necessitating the writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The court found the petitioner entitled to all service benefits and directed the respondents to grant necessary reliefs within three months, including pay fixation per relevant rules.

Issues: The primary issues presented included the entitlement to service benefits post-exoneration and the impact of disciplinary proceedings on such entitlements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that once allegations are resolved in favor of the employee, withheld benefits must be restored, asserting the rights of the individual against undue delays caused by administrative proceedings.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner requests for writ of mandamus. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's retirement and withheld benefits. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. counsel arguments regarding reliefs. (Para 6)
4. entitlement post-exoneration from charges. (Para 7 , 8)
5. order to grant reliefs within three months. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT

1. By means of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

'I) ISSUE RULE, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus or in the nature thereof shall not be issued thereby directing the Respondents to make full and final payment of the arrears of salary of the petitioner by way of salary upgradation in terms of ACP-III as well as held up promotion with retrospective effect along with prevailing market rate of interest at par his similarly situated colleagues;

II) ISSUE RULE, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus, and/ or in the nature thereof, directing the Respondents to make payment of the Special Pay i.e. the 13th month salary to the petitioner which had been forcefully taken back from the petitioner by way of challan dated 05.09.2014;

III) ISSUE RULE, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus, and/or in the nature thereof, directing the respondents to recalculate and refix the pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, commutation of pension along with other retiral benefits of the petitioner in terms of the salary upgradation of the petitioner on account of ACP-III and held up promotion and make the full and final payment thereof;

IV) ISSUE RULE, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus or in the nature thereof shall not be issued thereby directing the respondents, to make payment of statutory interest along with market rate of interest on the paid amount of gratuity, leave encashment salary, commutation of pension and regular pension;

V) ISSUE RULE, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus or in the nature thereof shall not be issued thereby directing the respondents, to make full and final payment of pension after giving the financial benefit of 2.25 as per ROP 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017, 2.57 as per ROP 2018 w.e.f. 01.10.2018 and an increase of 3% D.A w.e.f. 01.04.2021 in calculating his pension;

VI) CALL FOR THE RECORDS appertaining to this petition.

VII) COSTS of and incidental to this proceeding;

VIII) Any other RELIEF(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper;'

2. The facts and circumstances of the present case may be narrated herein below:

3. The petitioner is a retired Government employee. He retired on 31.12.2015. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him under memo dated 27.08.2011. Due to such proceeding he was not given any promotion and further the benefit of ACP-III was also not allowed to him. Even after his retirement, payment of gratuity and other service benefits were kept withheld.

4. After his retirement in the year 2020, the petitioner had filed a writ petition which was registered as WP(C) No. 521 of 2020. While disposing of the said writ petition, this court had directed the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to complete the disciplinary proceeding within a period of six months from the date of the order.

5. Thereafter, after completing all formalities, the petitioner was informed that he was exonerated from all the articles of charges levelled against him. After such exoneration, the petitioner had filed representation claiming all the reliefs narrated here-in-above. But till today, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner have not been granted, compelling him to file the present writ petition.

6.I have heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A assisted by P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents as

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