Service law – Retiral benefits – Liability of the appellant-private college covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government, to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee – Respondent dismissed from service on account of misconduct – Challenge to – Respondent directed to be reinstated as the dismissal was found to be an extreme punishment by the appellate authority – High Court upheld the order of reinstatement since the respondent had already superannuated, however directed the appellant to pay back wages to the extent of 75% – In appeal, back wages granted to the respondent set aside, however, the appellant and the State directed to pay retiral dues to the respondent – Thereagainst, the review petitions filed wherein the appellant directed to pay the retiral dues – Correctness: Held: Appellant is an institution entitled to Grant-in-Aid and the employees thereof are entitled to pensionary benefits in terms of the said Scheme – State directing the reinstatement of the Respondent no. 2 cannot be fatal for the Appellant and burden it with the retiral benefits of Respondent no. 2 whereas the Scheme provides for otherwise – No exception provided in the Scheme to enable the State to deny payment of retiral benefits to an employee of the Grant-in-Aid Institution under certain circumstances and shift the burden on the institution – There were serious charges against the Respondent no. 2 which included inter alia instigation of students to go on strike, improper behaviour with the co-employees, attempt to pollute the atmosphere in the institution, violation of rules and regulations of the institution and involvement in the activities which may cause damage to the institution – After inquiry, with a view to maintain discipline in the institution, it was found appropriate that the Respondent no. 2 be dismissed from service – However, appellate authority found that the punishment of dismissal too harsh and the issues could have been resolved by way of discussion – Appellant, keeping in view the discipline in the institution, thought it appropriate to challenge the same – In such circumstances, it cannot be opined that it’s conduct was such that it should be burdened with the retiral benefits of delinquent employee – It cannot be said that the action taken by the appellant against the Respondent no. 2 was without jurisdiction – Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside – State to pay retiral dues to Respondent no. 2. [Paras 13-16]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.