top of page

MERELY BECAUSE AN ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE OFFICER, IT DOES NOT WARRANT THE PERSONAL PRESENCE OF

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS v. SUDHARSHANA CHATTERJEE

Civil Appeal No. 9301/2019, SLP No. 10542/2019- 10th December, 2019

CORAM: Two judge bench, comprising of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna

Wherein it was held that

“Quash of order of denial of retirement benefits to the appellant by the HC set aside, SLP allowed by the SC.”

Appeal arising out of SLP has been filed by the appellants against the judgment  passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-petition in and by which the High Court has quashed the order passed by the appellants denying retrial benefits to the respondent on account of her having joined the service in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences and the High Court  directed the appellants to pass fresh order in accordance with law in the light of observations made by the High Court. Appeal arising out of SLP has been filed against the interim order passed in Writ-petition whereby the High Court directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Training to appear in-person and explain how the claim of the respondent has been rejected by order despite judgment of the High Court dated. The issue is as to whether the respondent is entitled to retirement benefits from Motilal Nehru Medical College or not.

The appellants contended that the HC has directed the authorities to examine the matter afresh but in the light of the observations made by the HC. They contended that the HC was not right in directing the principal secretary to be present and explain as to how the appellants had rejected the claims of the respondent which already stood quashed in terms of the judgement rendered inter parties in Writ of 2015. They contended using the precedent Shri N.K. Janu , Deputy Director, Social Welfare Forestary Division, Agra and others v. Lakshmi Chandra wherein in that precedent it was held that the practice of summoning officers to the court is not proper & does not serve the purpose of administration of justice. They also contended that the HC had erred in ignoring the conduct of the respondent. She has misled and misrepresented the facts & it is not right to say that the respondent is entitled to Voluntary Retirement by mere application to the appellants.

The respondent contended that she is 65 years old and has completed 22 full years of service with the State and so had shifted to another State to live with her daughter and work at CIMS & it is the fault of the appellants to have not responded to her leave applications and that the order of High Court to examine things by the State afresh in the light of the observations made by the HC. The respondent further submitted that in CIMS, Regular Pension Scheme ceases to operate from 2004 and also any employee like her who joined after 1.1.2004 is not entitled to Old Pension Scheme too. Also it was submitted that since the respondent had leave to her credit, it is not a case of absence or overstay of leave.

The SC observed that though the HC had ordered the State to examine the case of the respondent afresh, but putting restrictions to it by stating it has to be observed in the light of the observations made by the HC is not right.

The Court held the order passed by HC is to be set aside. The order directing principal secretary to be present is set aside too. The HC is to take up Writ and afford sufficient opportunities to both the parties and proceed with the matter in accordance to law without being influenced by any of the findings recorded by the HC in Writ Petition.

– Nardhana Ram

Comments


Articles

bottom of page