Service Law:
Retiral benefits – Denial of – Propriety – Employee (a Lecturer in a Medical College in State of U.P.) applied for the post of Associate Professor/Reader in a Medical College in the State of Chhattisgarh through proper channel – After being appointed she applied for two years leave for joining the post in Chhattisgarh – While the leave application was pending, she joined the post in Chhattisgarh – After superannuation from the Chhattisgarh College, she sought retiral benefits from the State of U.P. which was denied – Writ petition challenging denial of retiral benefits – High Court allowed the petition directing the State to pass fresh orders in the light of the observations made by the Court – The State considered the case afresh and rejected the case of the employee – Writ petition against the order – High Court directed personal presence of the officer who had passed the order – Petition was allowed holding that request for voluntary retirement could not have been rejected as the same already stood quashed by earlier order of High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The employee is not entitled to retiral benefits – The High Court while directing the State to pass fresh orders was not right in putting restriction that the same would be passed in the light of observations made by the Court – High Court was also not right in directing personal presence of the Officer.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court did not keep in view that even though the respondent’s leave application dated 30.04.2004 was pending consideration, the respondent on her own went and joined Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) on 15.06.2004 and this has been suppressed by the respondent. The respondent remained in the service of two State Governments i.e. State of UP and State of Chhattisgarh-CIMS and she is alleged to have drawn salary from both the State Governments for the period from June, 2004 to October, 2004. The High Court did not keep in view the conduct of the respondent. [Para 16] [856-E-G]
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Achal Singh (2018) 17 SCC 578 : [2018] 9 SCR 912 – referred to.
2. The High Court while directing the State Government to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, was not right in putting restrictions upon the appellants by saying that the fresh orders will have to be passed in the light of the observations made by the High Court. [Para 17] [857-A-B]
3. The High Court was not right in directing the Principal Secretary to appear in the court and explain the reason for passing the order dated 04.01.2019. Observing that merely because an order has been passed by the officer, it does not warrant the personal presence of the officer in the Court and summoning of officers to the Court and eventually affect the public at large. [Para 19] [857-F-G]
Shri N.K. Janu, Deputy Director, Social Welfare Forestary Division, Agra and Others v. Lakshmi Chandra (2019) 6 SCALE 236 – relied on.
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.