Supreme Court of India

R. PARANGUSAM ETC.versusCHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR AND ANR.

Citation: 1996 INSC 768
Decided: 22 July 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMY

Holding

A tribunal cannot order a fresh enquiry after the employee has retired; the appellant is entitled to promotion and related benefits.

Summary

The appellant, a retired government employee, challenged a compulsory retirement order. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal set aside the retirement order and directed the Government to conduct a fresh enquiry and fix his pension. The appellant contended that a fresh enquiry was unnecessary after his retirement. The Supreme Court held that, having already retired, there was no justification for a fresh enquiry and the Tribunal’s direction was ultra vires. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed the Government to consider his promotion on par with juniors promoted pending enquiry, granting promotion with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and pension as if he had retired in the promotional post, to be paid within six weeks. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a fresh enquiry can be ordered by a tribunal after the employee has retired from service
Whether the tribunal’s direction to set aside compulsory retirement and remand the matter for fresh enquiry is valid
Whether the appellant is entitled to promotion and consequential pension benefits on par with juniors promoted pending enquiry

Subjects

service lawcompulsory retirementpromotionpensionadministrative tribunalfresh enquirygovernment employeeappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                          R. PARANGUSAM ETC.
                                         v.
             CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR AND ANR.

                                 JULY 22, 1996

             [K. RAMASWAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                                      B

        Se1vice La1v--{~01111ntlso1y rctire111ent-Order set aside b.v Tribunal and
111atter ren1ittcd lo (/ni,'crJvncnt for conducting enqui1y ajtcr giving oppo1tu11ity
to employce--Orde1s for flxarion of pension-Held in vieiv of !he facl tlwr
employee had already re/ired direction for fresh enquily was not called                 C
for-Order of T1ibunal set asid~Dircclion to consider eniployee's pron1otion
at par }'Vi th juniors pronzoted during enquily--lf found eliJ,rible pronzotion
should he granted ivith consequential benefits.

     CIVIL APPELLATE .TURJSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9863 of
1996 Etc.                                                                               D
     From the Judgment aml Order datet! 18.12.92 of the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. No. 2423 of 1990.

       C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Appellant.
                                                                                        E
       V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondents.

       The following Order of the Court was delivered :

       Delay condoned.
                                                                                        F
       Leave granted.

       We requested Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel to
assist the appellant. We have heard the arguments for the State and also
Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan. The Tribunal in the impugned order, while setting                G
aside the order of compubory retirement from service, remitted the matter
to the Ci-ovcrn1nent to conduct the enquiry afresh after giving opportunity
to the appellant and based thereon to pass appropriate orders for fixation
of the pension etc. It is not in dispute that the appellant has already retired
fron1 service. It is also not in dispute that the advances dra\vn for construc-
tion of the hou~e, allot1nent of the house in the name of his wife by Housing           H
                                        801
     802                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996} SUPP. 3 S.C.R ..

A Board has already been redone. Consequently, there is no detriment
  caused to the Stale. Since he had already retired from service, we think,
  on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case for conducting
  a fresh enquiry as directed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is
  set aside. The Government is directed to consider his case for promotion
B on par with the juniors who were promoted pending enquiry, and then
  grant him promotion if he is found eligible with all consequential reliefs.
  The Government will also redetermine his notional scale of pay on the
  promotional post and pay the arrears of salary and also pension as if he
  had retired on promotional post. This action should be taken and payment
  made within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
C·
           The appeals arc accordingly allowed. No costs.

     T.N.A.                                                  Appeals allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search