Supreme Court Quashes Departmental Proceedings Against Retired Employee, Orders Release of Retiral Benefits, Supreme Court rules against Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation for initiating proceedings without legal authority post-retirement.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the departmental proceedings initiated by the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation against Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan, a retired employee, citing the lack of jurisdiction and specific provisions in the 1992 Regulations to conduct such proceedings post-retirement. The court directed the Corporation to release all withheld retiral benefits and refund any recovered amounts to the appellant.
The case revolved around the initiation of departmental inquiries against Pathan, who retired as a Storage Superintendent in 2008. The proceedings were based on alleged financial losses incurred during his tenure. However, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, observed that the Corporation lacked the jurisdiction to institute these proceedings after Pathan's superannuation, as there were no specific provisions in the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992, or the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, that permitted such actions.
The court highlighted that the 1992 Regulations, specifically Rule 110, did not automatically adopt the 1982 Pension Rules, which require a conscious decision by the Corporation's Board to apply them to its employees. Moreover, the Corporation failed to secure the mandatory sanction from the government as required under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of the 1982 Pension Rules before initiating proceedings against a retired employee.
The judgment further clarified that the Corporation had no authority to withhold or recover retiral benefits post-retirement, as the necessary legal framework to support such actions was absent. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and safeguarding the rights of retired employees against unauthorized proceedings.
This ruling not only provides relief to Pathan but also sets a precedent for similar cases, ensuring that public corporations adhere strictly to legal provisions when dealing with retired employees' rights.
Bottom Line:
Departmental proceedings cannot be instituted or continued against a superannuated employee by the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation in absence of specific provisions in its 1992 Regulations and without adherence to mandatory requirements under Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Statutory provision(s): Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 Rule 110, Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 Rule 27
