Allowed

Mamta Das v. State Education Departmentanr

Rajasthan HC6 Sept 2016CW/9057/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a punishment order treating the petitioner's absence as a 'Break in Service' without a prior inquiry. The court set aside the relevant portions of the order, accepted the petitioner's voluntary retirement application, and directed the authorities to exclude the absent period for pension calculation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's voluntary retirement application accepted; punishment order quashed in part; period of absence excluded for pension calculation.

Mamta Das Vs State Education Departmentanr — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9057/2015 Mamta Das Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶4

Date of Order ::: 06.09.2016

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶6

Mr. Ashok Gaur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akhil Simlote, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Govt. Counsel, for the respondents.

¶7

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 22.09.2008. The impugned order of punishment was passed in public hearing. The order of punishment is for alleged absence from duties between 19.07.2005 till 14.10.2005 and till issuance of the charge-sheet. By the impugned order, period of absence has been treated to be “Break in Service”. The punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect has also been imposed. It is without initiating the inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the “CCA Rules”).

¶8

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner made a proposal on 22.08.2016 that if the petitioner is given voluntary retirement and retiral benefit are given excluding the period of absence while quashing the order then also petitioner would be satisfied. It is looking to the fact that Appellate Authority modified the order of punishment whereby the period of absence is taken to be “Break in Service”. However the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been set aside.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the State Government submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, where enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, has not been conducted before passing order of punishment, this court may pass appropriate order in the interest of the parties.

¶11

In the light of the proposal given by the petitioner and as not been contested by the Government, the impugned order needs to be interfered. It is even for the reason that order of punishment has been passed

¶12

¶13

without holding enquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules. It has been done in the public hearing, though no procedure exist for public hearing. The impugned order of punishment is thus not legally sustainable. The petitioner has tender voluntary retirement for which an application had been given in the month of October, 2015 thus, while interfering in the impugned order of punishment, the writ petition is disposed of by the following directions:-

¶14

(i) The petitioner's application for voluntary retirement be accepted by the respondents.

¶15

(ii) The order of punishment treating period of absence as “Break in Service” is set aside with a direction to the respondents to exclude the period of absence for determination of qualifying period for pension.

¶16

(iii) If the petitioner has served the respondents for required length to qualify for pension then the

¶17

petitioner would be entitled for benefit of pension after excluding the period of absence.

¶18

(iv) Compliance of the order would be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶19

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

(M.N. BHANDARI),J

¶21

sunita/35

Mamta Das v. State Education Departmentanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Das v. State Education Departmentanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Chand Sharma Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Ram Swaroop Eniwal Vs State Education Departmentors

Hemant Kumar BAIRWAandORS Vs State Elementary Educationors

Anita Bareth Vs R P S C Ajmer andORS

Moti Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Meghraj Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp