Allowed

Shreeram Bansiwal S/O Girdhari Lal v. Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (Rtdc)

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2023CW/2812/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a writ petition filed by a former Assistant Manager whose dismissal was set aside by the appellate authority. The court directed the employer to grant salary benefits retrospectively from the date of dismissal until superannuation and confer post-retiral benefits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to grant salary from the date of dismissal till superannuation and confer post-retiral benefits as per service rules.

Shreeram Bansiwal S/O Girdhari Lal Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/000212]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2812/2021

¶4

Shreeram Bansiwal S/o Girdhari Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Satya Nagar, Sikandra Road, Opp. New Anaz Mandi, Bandikui District Dausa (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (Rtdc), Through Its Chairman, Paryatan Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Vidhyakpuri Police Station, M.i. Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶8

Managing Director, Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation, Paryatan Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Vidhyakpuri Police Station, M.i. Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Tanveer Ahmed with Mr.Rakesh Kumar Dhawan For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Kuri with Mr.Dhasma Ram

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶12

Order

¶13

23/01/2023

¶14

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to pay retiral dues, including salary from 18^th August, 2017 along with interest @ 9% per annum. The petitioner also prays for grant of full salary during the suspension period.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager in the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (for short “the respondent Corporation”) and he was issued a charge sheet dated 06^th July, 2015. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of dismissal vide order dated 18^th August, 2017.

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/000212]

[CW-2812/2021]

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had preferred departmental appeal against the dismissal order and the said appeal came to be decided by an order dated 05^th October, 2020.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority found that dismissal of the petitioner from services was bad and as such, the appeal of the petitioner came to be accepted by the Appellate Authority.

¶21

Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation, in its meeting held on 18^th November, 2020, decided to accept decision of the Appellate Committee and further, directed to take action accordingly.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation in September, 2020 and as a necessary corollary, the order of dismissal of the petitioner has been set aside by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner ought to have been granted all the benefits of salary and post retiral benefits along with interest.

¶23

Learned counsel submitted that the order of dismissal, if has been set aside by the Appellate Authority, the same would relate back to the initial order of penalty and as such, the employer cannot deprive the petitioner from the actual benefits, flowing from setting aside the dismissal order.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents – Mr.Amit Kuri submitted that claim, which has been made by the petitioner in the instant petition, may not be accepted by this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation in September, 2020 and his appeal was accepted on 05^th October, 2020, i.e., after superannuation of the

(3 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/000212]

[CW-2812/2021]

petitioner and as such, the petitioner may be entitled for grant of benefit from the date of acceptance of the appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that setting aside the order of dismissal by the Appellate Authority would not result into granting benefit from retrospective date to the petitioner and according to the meeting of the Board of Directors, the order of Appellate Authority was to be given effect and action was to be taken in prospective manner.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner has been exonerated by the authorities, on technical ground and as such, claim of interest, as made by the petitioner, may not be accepted by this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel further submitted that there were gross financial irregularities, which were committed by several persons and as such, the petitioner was in receipt of a charge sheet and as such, the prayer made by the petitioner may not be accepted by this Court.

¶33

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

This Court finds that admittedly, dismissal order of the petitioner dated 18^th August, 2017 has been set aside by the Appellate Authority.

¶35

This Court further finds that appeal preferred by the petitioner has been accepted by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 05^th October, 2020.

¶36

This Court further finds that the respondent – employer has decided to give effect to the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/000212]

[CW-2812/2021]

This Court finds that once dismissal order of the petitioner has been set aside even by the Appellate Authority, the order of dismissal is wiped out and as such, the petitioner becomes entitled for the benefits, flowing from setting aside the dismissal order.

¶41

This Court finds that the petitioner, if before attaining the age of superannuation, has been serving in the Department on account of setting aside the dismissal order, the petitioner was to be continued in service and he would have drawn his salary.

¶42

This Court finds that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation before his appeal being accepted and at least, now the petitioner becomes entitled for payment of his salary till his age of superannuation and further, after the date of superannuation, the post retiral benefits, if any due to the petitioner, are also required to be paid by the respondents.

¶43

The prayer of the petitioner to grant interest on the salary and post retiral benefits cannot be accepted by this Court and the same is declined.

¶44

This Court, accordingly, disposes of the writ petition by directing the respondents to grant benefits of salary to the petitioner from the date of dismissal till the age of superannuation and thereafter, the respondents may confer post retiral benefits as per the service rules within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶45

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶46

Preeti Asopa /25

Shreeram Bansiwal S/O Girdhari Lal v. Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (Rtdc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreeram Bansiwal S/O Girdhari Lal v. Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (Rtdc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopi Lal S/O Shri Pannalal Meghwanshi Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S National Engineering Industries Limited, Vs M/S Gemus Engineering Limited

M/S Shiv Puja Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Lt. Col. Udai Singh Panwar S/O Dhonkal Singh Panwar Vs Union of India

Seema Gupta Vs University of Rajasthan

Mali Ram Vs State Home Department Ors.