AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for a direction to be given to the concerned respondent to disburse the monetary benefits flowing from Ext. P1 judgment, whereby the rights and liberties of the petitioner to have the retirement benefits came to be settled. The petitioner was working as a Librarian Gr. IV in the respondent College and while in service, he happened to be suspended with effect from 16.12.2005 pending disciplinary proceedings. On completing the domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer arrived at a finding of guilt on the part of the petitioner and after considering the materials on record, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement from service.
Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner approached the statutory authority, i.e., the University Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal, which did not turn to be fruitful. The petitioner approached this Court by filing C.R.P. No. 1101/2007, which came to be finalized as per Ext. P1 order dated 19.11.2010, whereby this Court modified the nature of punishment whereby the date of compulsory retirement as originally ordered was changed to be with effect from the date of order i.e., 19.11.2010. It was also observed that, the benefit of the said verdict was to enable the petitioner only to regularize the period for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits and for no other benefits. It was further mentioned that, the petitioner would be eligible to have subsistence allowance for the period from 16.12.2005 till 19.11.2010. The delay on the part of the concerned respondent in giving effect to Ext. P1 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
The respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit stating that, there is absolutely no lapse or delay on the part of said respondent and they have already given effect to the verdict passed by this Court. It is stated that the relevant proceedings have been forwarded to the concerned Department and it for respondents 1 and 2 to have pursued further steps for causing disbursement of due benefits.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount payable to the petitioner by way of subsistence allowance to petitioner has already been disbursed pursuant to Ext. P1 judgment and what remains is the re-fixation of pension and payment of arrears and such other benefits by way of retirement benefits flowing therefrom. The learned counsel also submits that, the pay of the petitioner came to be revised in the meanwhile and as such, the petitioner is entitled to have arrears of pay revision as well and in turn, re-fixation of pension and arrears payable under that head as well.
The learned Government Pleader submits that, the proceedings forwarded by respondents 3 and 4 were defective and as such, they were returned to the said respondents along with letter dated 25.2.2012 and it is because of the delay in resending the proceedings, that the matter could not be finalized. The said insinuation is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 with reference to Ext. R4(f) order dated 29.2.2012, stating that, the defects have been cured and the proceedings are already resubmitted before the departmental authorities.
It remains a fact that, Ext. P1 verdict has become final, the operative portion of which reads as follows:
... However, taking into consideration the fact that the delinquent had admitted guilt, we do not deem it necessary to remit the matter, particularly when the delinquent has reached the age of 54 years. Ends of justice prompt us to think that complete justice would be done between the parties, if the order of compulsory retirement is treated as imposed w.e.f. today, however that the period until now from 16.12.2005, the date of his suspension, would be treated as period of suspension and the revision petitioner would not be eligible for any wages. He would be eligible only to draw subsistence allowance for the period from 16.12.2005 till today, 19.11.2010. We further clarify that the period from 16.12.2005 till today would be treated as qualifying service, only for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. The management will draw up necessary papers for disbursement of dues to the delinquent, including retiral, in terms of this judgment and forward the same to the concerned department of the Government at the earliest.
Since there is no dispute with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner to obtain the benefits as aforesaid, the respondents are directed to take all necessary steps to give effect to the verdict and to disburse the entire benefits payable to the petitioner in respect of the service as aforesaid. The steps shall be finalized at the earliest and necessary disbursement shall be effected at the earliest, at any rate, within ''three months'' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is allowed to the said extent. No cost. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 1st respondent for further steps.