Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.31 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Violet Issac And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 February, 1991
As per the decision of Apex Court in Violet Isaac case he is entitled to retain the quarter till the date of payment of terminal benefits. The orders passed by the Tribunal in this regard in OA No. 130/94 are also to this effect. "
Union Of India vs Madhusudan Prasad on 28 October, 2003
Now, similar case was decided wherein also, show cause notice was not given by the disciplinary authority to the concerned employee. In this case also, after receiving the report from the inquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed order of removal from service against the respondent straight away without supplying to the respondent a copy of the inquiry officer's report and also without issuing show cause notice to the respondent. Therefore, according to our opinion, Fundamental Rule 54A read with Rule 1344 would not apply to the facts of the present case. Relevant observations made in para 5 and 6 of the decision in Union of India v. Madhusudan Prasad 2004(1) SCC L & S page 29, are reproduced as under:
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Madan Mohan Prasad on 28 February, 2002
32. The case of Respondents Railway Administration is that the payment of terminal benefits was held up on account of non-vacation of the quarters and whatever payment is due is less than the recovery for unauthorised occupation of the quarter. The learned lawyer on behalf of the applicant has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Violet Isaac vs. Union of India and Union of India vs. Madan Mohan Prasad has held that penal rent/damage rent do not fall under the terms admitted or obvious dues. The amount towards normal rent and electricity and water charges which are admitted can be deducted.
Gorakhpur University & Ors vs Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra & Ors on 7 August, 2001
In Gorakhpur University v. Shital Prasad Nagendra [ AIR 2001 SC 2433], the apex court held that the pension and other retirement benefits cannot be adjusted or appropriated for satisfaction of any other dues outstanding against retired employee, therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision, contention of the petitioner to adjust damage rent against the retirement benefits is illegal and contrary to law and the same cannot be accepted and accordingly same is rejected. The respondent was entitled to occupy the quarter till he receives retirement benefits from the petitioner, therefore, question of recovery of damage rent or penal rent does not arise at all. The Tribunal has, in the impugned order, considered the contentions raised by the petitioner. The Tribunal considered and discussed the contention of applicability of rule 1344 (FR 54A) while considering various decisions of the apex court on the subject matter. Relevant paragraphs 13, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 32 from the order of the Tribunal are reproduced as under:
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
Fourth reason is once the order of removal is quashed, it was the duty of the petitioners to pass an order of reinstatement immediately from the date of removal till the date of the order made by the tribunal but no such order was passed by the petitioners. Therefore, considering the entire matter from all angles, according to our opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to pass any order under Rule 1344 (FR 54A) for denying back wages and other benefits to the respondent for the intervening period. The contingency suggested by the Tribunal in its order has not at all arrived and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to pass any order contrary to the directions issued by the Tribunal. It is also relevant that the order of the tribunal in TA No. 452 of 1986 dated August 31, 1990 as well as the order of the tribunal in review application were not challenged by the petitioners before the higher forum and thus, both the orders have become final, therefore, order of removal was quashed by the tribunal and petitioners had not completed or continued proceedings, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to pass any adverse orders and are having no jurisdiction to pass such orders dated December 23, 1994 under Rule 2044 and 1344 as referred to above. Review application was rejected by the Tribunal on August 14, 1991, thereafter, the petitioners have not passed any order reinstating the respondent and for payment of the amount of retirement benefits and back wages for the intervening period. Since the order of the Tribunal in TA NO. 452 of 1986 dated August 31, 1990 as well as the order dated August 14, 1991 in Review Application were not challenged by the petitioners before the higher forum and further since the petitioners failed to continue the disciplinary proceedings from the stage indicated by the tribunal in its order dated August 31, 1990, the petitioners ought to have reinstated the respondent with all consequential benefits including back wages. Instead of that, the petitioners passed order of paper reinstatement on October 4, 1994; for the intervening period, passed order on December 23, 1994; paid an amount of Rs. 23,978.00 towards PF to the respondent on May 15, 1995; on September 26, 1995, computation of pension was paid to the respondent and before that, on July 6, 1995, monthly pension was paid. On March 5, 1995, amount of GIS was paid to the respondent, meaning thereby, from the date of retirement December 31, 1990, at least more than four years had gone but the petitioners remained silent and tight over the matter and no payments were made in favour of the respondent who was removed from service in the year 1982. Instead of making such payments in favour of the respondent, the petitioners initiated eviction proceedings against the respondent compelling the respondent to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 130 of 1994. Said OA No. 130 of 1994 was disposed of by the Tribunal on August 4, 1994 and on September 26, 1994, quarter was vacated by the respondent. Looking to the above facts, it is clear that the respondent remained without any amount including the salary, retirement benefits and other service benefits from 1982 to 1994, for a period of 12 years or so putting the respondent in pitiable condition. The wage or money is the real content of Article 21. If we were to take out the wage content from this Article 21, it would be reduced to a dead letter not worth even for decoration. Right to livelihood and right to social justice are the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. Health and strength of a worker is an integral facet of right to life, even thogh, the State has acted in an arbitrary and harsh manner against the respondent to the extent that from the date of his removal, May 25, 1982 till the date of his retirement December 31, 1990 and till May 15, 1995, no payments of any kind were made in favour of the respondent. Then, during this period of about 12 years, how the respondent maintained himself and his family, what about the education of his children, health and other problems faced by the respondent due to unemployment and non payment of wages and retirement benefits? Employer can pay all the benefits to the employee after his action is quashed by the competent court. Can the employer compensate the employee for the irreparable injury caused to the employee, untold miseries suffered by the employee without any source of income during the intervening period? Therefore, this Court has to consider the struggle of a Mail Express Driver against the Mighty Giant Government during the period 12 years intervening period.