Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. K.K. Shah for the respondent has submitted that the tribunal was right in granting the relief in favour of the respondent; the order of removal was not in existence as it was quashed by the tribunal in earlier proceedings; the petitioners failed to initiate proceedings till the respondent retired from service on 31st December, 1990. No steps were taken by the petitioner; no retirement benefits were paid by the petitioners till 1994. He submitted that the respondent workman was entitled to occupy the quarter as he was not paid the retirement benefits by the petitioners; that the tribunal was right in relying upon the case of Violet Isaac versus Union of India and Union of India versus Madan Mohan Prasad [(2003) 1 ATJ 246]; that the tribunal was right in discussing the whole issue and considering various decisions of the apex court on the subject and has passed proper orders; has not committed any error, therefore, no interference is necessary; that looking to the alleged misconduct of remaining absent for 75 days because of the serious accident, extreme punishment of removal from service is illegal, unjust and improper; that the workman was admitted in the Railway Hospital after the accident while on duty; extreme and unjustified punishment of removal and the intervening period of unemployment from the date of penalty May 25, 1982 till the date of his retirement has ruined the whole life of the respondent. He high-lighted pitiable condition of the workman during the course of his oral submissions and submitted that the unemployment of the respondent during the intervening period has compelled the son of the respondent to give up his studies from Std. 3 and has, thereby, affected the education of his children; in the year 2000, the respondent has become blind and has lost his vision due to failure in surgery; in 2004, lower part of the body become dead due to paralysis. He submitted that the Railway Medical Facilities are available but for want of sufficient funds and timely action, the respondent could not take proper treatment; the amount of retirement benefits received by the respondent has been spent on medical expenses. At present, the respondent is staying in a kacha chawl on rental basis and his son is selling corriander and vegetables in vegetable market at Maninagar for some one and is getting Rs. 1200.00 to Rs. 1500.00 per month. He also submitted that it was left at the sole discretion of the petitioners to hold or not to hold further proceedings from the stage indicated by the tribunal but the petitioners failed to continue the proceedings from the stage indicated by the tribunal and the respondent retired in the mean time, on December 31, 1990 after the order of removal was quashed by the Tribunal on August 31, 1990 and, therefore, the respondent workman is deemed to have continued in service as if he has never been removed from service and, therefore, tribunal was right in granting the relief in favour of the respondent. He submits that the petitioners were not precluded from proceeding further in the proceedings against the respondent from the stage indicated by the tribunal but they filed review application wherein stay was not granted and the order quashing the order of removal was operating against the petitioners. He submits that the respondent joined service in 1950 and had put in more than 32 years and was having unblemish past which was ignored while passing the order of removal; looking to the gravity of misconduct of remaining absent for 75 days, the extreme punishment of removal was harsh and unjustified considering his past unblemish service record of 32 years from 1950 and, therefore, considering the matter as a whole, the tribunal is perfectly right in granting the reliefs in favour of the respondent, therefore, there is no substance in the petition and the petition is required to be dismissed. Except these submissions, no other submissions were made by the learned advocate Mr. Shah before this Court either oral or in writing.

Thus, these are the legal position of law and yet the petitioners acted in harsh and arbitrary manner against the respondent who remained without wages and other retirement benefits for pretty long period of 12 years which ruined whole family life of the respondent during this period and because of that, son of the respondent was compelled to give up studies from Std.3, though primary education is compulsory in our country. Now, the respondent has become blind, has lost his vision, suffering from paralysis in half of the body, waiting for final outcome of the proceedings.