Radha Kishun Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....leave stayed reinstatement order on 17-11-1997. two more years elapsed during the pendency of the appeal before the supreme court. all these factors together point in the direction of not saddling the appellant corporation, a public body, with the burden of entire full back wages to be granted to the respondent workman after the passage of 33 years since his order of termination. the second reason is that the respondent workman for all these years could not have remained totally unemployed though there is no clear evidence that he was gainfully employed and was so well-off that he should be denied complete back wages but keeping in view the fact that for all these long years, the respondent workman had survived and has still two more years to reach the age of superannuation, not granting him full back wages on the peculiar facts of this case, would meet the ends of justice. the impugned order of the high court is modified by directing that the respondent workman will be entitled to get 50% of back wages from the date of his termination, i.e. from 29-4-1966 till his actual reinstatement in service of the appellant corporation with continuity of service. the respondent..........on may 31, 1991. it would be an obvious case of absolute irresponsibility on the part of the officer concerned in the establishment in the concerned section for not taking any action to have the petitioner retired from service on his attaining superannuation. it is true that the petitioner worked during that period, but when he is not to continue to be in service as per law, he has no right to claim the salary etc. it is not the case that he was re-employed in the public interest, after attaining superannuation. under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the authorities in refusing to grant the benefits.4. it is then contended that the petitioner would have conveniently secured gainful employment elsewhere and having worked, he cannot be denied of the legitimate salary to which he is entitled to. though the argument is alluring, we cannot accept the contention and give legitimacy to the illegal action taken by the authorities. if the contention is given acceptance, it would be field day for manipulation with impunity and one would get away on the plea of equity and misplaced sympathy. it cannot and should not be given countenance.5. under.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1.This is an astonishing and more shocking case. The petitioner who was, admittedly, to retire on May 31, 1991 remained in office till May 31, 1994 as if he was not to retire from service, enjoying all the benefits of service.

2. This special leave petition raised from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, made on November 26, 1996 in OA No. 652/1995. The petitioner had joined the service in Tele Communications Department. Admittedly, his date of birth is May 13, 1933. On attaining the age of superannuation, he was to retire on May 31, 1994. Instead he remained in service till May 31, 1994. When action was taken to recover the amounts paid to him for the period beyond the date he was to retire viz., May 31, 1991 and to which he was not entitled, he filed OA in the Tribunal and the same has been dismissed. Thus this special leave petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has worked during the period, he is entitled to the payment of the pay and allowances from June 1, 1991 to June 26, 1994 and that he is also entitled to the payment of Provisional Pension, Death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension amount, GPF money and the amount deposited under CGHS on the plea that he retired from service on May 31, 1994. We are aghast to notice the boldness with which it is claimed that he is entitled to all the benefits with effect from the abovesaid date when admittedly he was to retire on May 31, 1991. It would be an obvious case of absolute irresponsibility on the part of the officer concerned in the Establishment in the concerned section for not taking any action to have the petitioner retired from service on his attaining superannuation. It is true that the petitioner worked during that period, but when he is not to continue to be in service as per law, he has no right to claim the salary etc. It is not the case that he was re-employed in the public interest, after attaining superannuation. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the authorities in refusing to grant the benefits.

4. It is then contended that the petitioner would have conveniently secured gainful employment elsewhere and having worked, he cannot be denied of the legitimate salary to which he is entitled to. Though the argument is alluring, we cannot accept the contention and give legitimacy to the illegal action taken by the authorities. If the contention is given acceptance, it would be field day for manipulation with impunity and one would get away on the plea of equity and misplaced sympathy. It cannot and should not be given countenance.

5. Under those circumstances, we dismiss the petition with a direction to Government of India to take appropriate disciplinary action against all the persons concerned for their deliberate dereliction of duty in not ensuring the petitioner's retirement on his attaining the age of superannuation.

6. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Secretary, Telecommunications. Government of India. The Secretary is directed to ensure immediate action in the matter and submit the compliance report to the Registrar of the this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order.