Dismissed

Union of India v. G. Ganesh

Telangana HC2 Feb 2021WP/3646/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a C.A.T. order mandating the release of pension to a retired employee. The court held that since the charge sheet is based on a caste certificate which remains subsisting and was not cancelled by the competent authority, the petitioner cannot withhold pension benefits pending the inquiry result.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; interlocutory applications were closed without order as to costs.

Union of India Vs G. Ganesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND

¶5

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3646 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Union of lndia, rep. by its Joint Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, I,4inistry of Finance, Govt. of lndia. New Delhi.

¶9

...pErt,oNER

¶10

AND

¶11

G. Ganesh, S/o. fi/anohan, aged 62 years, Inspector Control (Retd), Security Printing Press, Ir/int Compound, Saifabad, Hyderabad, R/o Flat No. 202 Thirumaia Apartments, Nagarjuna Nagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad

¶12

...RESpoNDENT

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to order in O.A. No. 47812013 dated 06.09.20'18 and Contempt Petition No. 104/2018 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad examine and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational and void

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further proceedings in Contempt Petition No. 104/2018 filed by the respondent against the order in O.A. No. 47812013 dated 06.09.2018 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad^pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶17

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to dispense with filing of the original copy of the order in O.A. No. 47812013 dated 06.09.2018 of

¶18

theHon,bleCentralAdministrativeTribunal,HyderabadBenchalongWithWrit petition.

¶19

IA O:1 OF

¶20

PetitionunderSectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto receive the} Additional^{Documentsin the interest of justice'}

¶21

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI M' SRIKANTH}

¶22

Counsel for^{Respondent: SRI M. SURENDERRAO' SENIOR COUNSELFOR} SRI CH.A.B. SATYANARAYANA

¶23

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMMEM AKTHER

¶25

w.P.N0.3645 0F 20',I9

¶26

O R D E R^(Per the Hon'ble Sri Juslice A.Roiosheker Reddv)

¶27

The responden't herein is lhe opplicont before the Centrol

¶28

Administrotive Tribunol, Hyderobod Bench in O.A.No.478 of 201 3.

¶29

The cose of the respondent/opplicont is thot, os the disciplinory

¶30

oction initioied ogoinst him on lhe ollegotion of securing employmeni by

¶31

submilting o folse coste cerlificote, is not being finolized, ond the coste certificote issued by ihe compelent outhority is in force, he is entilled for oll the benefits, which ore due to him ofter refirement os per the terms

¶32

ond condilions of service.

¶33

The Tribunol vide order doted 06.09.2018 ollowed the O.A., ond direcled the respondenls to consider for releose of regulor^pension ond other terminol benefits thol ore due to him from lhe dole of^his reliremenl os per the terms ond conditions of service of the respondents orgonizotion, within o^period of 60 doys from ihe dote of receipt of the copy of the order. The Tribunol olso mode it cleor thot it is open 10 the respondents io loke oction os is deemed fit ofter verificoiion of the cosle certificoie of the oppllcont by the compelent outhority, os^{per low.}

¶34

Assoiling lhe soid directlon of lhe Tribunol, the Union of lndio, filed

¶35

the present writ petition.

¶36

¶37

¶38

The focts in brief ore thot in the yeor 1983, o request wos mode on beholf of the Security Prinllng Press, Hyderobod to the locol Employment Exchonge, Hyderobod to sponsor o lisl of condidotes belonging to Scheduled Cose Community to full up the voconcies reserved for soid community. The cose of the opplicont is thot he belongs to Bedo Jongom Community ond he wos issued with coste certificote doled l5.l0.lgB3 by the Tohsildor, Guntur. The Employmenl Officer sponsored the list of scheduled coste condidotes, including the nome of the pefitioner, ond he wos oppointed os Heod Checker on 23.12.1983 in the scheduled coste reservolion quoto in the Security Priniing^press, Mint Compound, Soifobod, Hyderobod.

¶39

During the course of service, he wos promoled 1o the codre of lnspeclor (Control) 18.10.200,l. The Security prlnting press wos then under the control of the Deportment of Economic Affoirs, Minislry of Finonce, Government of lndio, New Delhi. On I 3.0I .2006, the Securily printing press olong with other eight other uniis, which were functioning under the Ministry of Finonce, were corporotized ond new Corporotion viz., Security Printing ond Minting Corporotion of lndio Ltd (for short^,SpMCtL,) wos formed. The employees working in the soid nine unils were given oplions, ond the iespondent herein opted for SpMCIL ond the options were occepled by the Government of tndio vide Order No.t0/l/2OOS/_SPMC

¶40

doted 29.05.2009, ond the obsorptions were given with effecl from 1.1 1.2008.

¶41

Prior lo the formotion of the new Corporolion i.e., SPMCIL, on I3.01 .2006, there wos settlement between the employees ond the Governmeni of Indio on 15.09.2008 before the Chief Lobour Commissioner, ond per lhe soid selllement, ihose employees recruiled before 01.01.2004, ond who opted to come into corporolion, were eligible for pension os per Rule 37-A of the CCS {Pension) Rules, l9l2, os omended from time 1o time, ond the employees who opted for SPMCIL, were to be treoted os hoving relired from service of Governmenl of Indio, ond ihey ore eligible for pro-roto pension

¶42

Accordingly, on being obsorbed into SPMCIL with effect from 1.11.2008, the opplicont submitted his pension popers on 10.06.2009 to the peiitioner herein, for poymeni of pro-roto pension for the services rendered by him in the Securily Printing Press, which wos then under the control of Governmenl of lndio. The soid^{pension popers} were forworded to PAO, Printing Press, Hyderobod on 14.07.2009, ond ore^pending co n sldero lion

¶43

While so, lhe opplicont wos issued with o chorge memo No.SSP/Al /PFl T.No.5679-1 0/3596 doted 24/25.09.2009 levelling o chorge thoi he secured employmenl by submitiing o folse / bogus coste certificote. Pending such inquiry, the oppliconi retired from service on

¶44

¶45

3l .08.2015, on oltoining the oge of superonnuotion. As he wos nol being poid ony pension ond other terminol benefits, eorlier he filed O.A.No.ll27 of 2016. The Tribunol, vide order doled 09.12.2016, direcled the respondents 1o poy him provisionol pension. As the disciplinory oction is nol being finolizolion, ond he is not being poid the regulor pension ond other terminol benefits, the present O.A., is filed, ond the Tribunol, vide the impugned order ollowed the opplicotion. Hence, the present wrii pelition by the Union of lndio.

¶46

Sri M.Srikonth, leorned Stonding Counsel for the Union of lndio. reileroling the focls referred to obove, ond olso refening the overments mode in the offidovil filed in support of the writ petition, submits thot respondent / opplicont hos secured employment by submiliing o bogus/folse coste certificote, which is o serious chorge ond the inquiry wos initioted bosed on lhe request mode by CBl. Centrol Vigilonce Commission, Notionol Commission for Scheduled Cosles ond Sociol Welfore Deportment of the Stote of Andhro prodesh. As the chorge pertoins to the genuineness or the conectness of the coste certificole produced by the opplicont, the competenl outhority is lhe Collector ond the District Mogistrote, Guntur, ond the hence the motter wos refened to the soid outhority ond inquiry is pending, ond unless the soid inquiry is concluded deportmentol proceedings connol be concluded. He submits thot unless the deporlmentol proceedings ore terminoted, rhe terminol

¶47

benefits of the opplicont/respondent connot be poid. Therefore, the

¶48

direction of the Tribunol is illegol ond orbitrory.

¶49

Leorned Stonding Counsel further submits thot the

¶50

respondeni/oppliconl is governed by ihe service condilions of SpMClL, which is the oppoiniing ond disciplinory oulhority ond thot the emoluments poyoble to the respondent ore from out of the budget of the SPMCIL, which is o body corporote, hoving o common seol ond perpetuol succession ond thot lhe petitioner is in no woy concerned with ony of the molters reloting to the employees of SpMClL.

¶51

He submils thot the SMPCIL filed W.P.No.42371 of 2018 to disown its liobilily ond the writ petition wos disposed of oi the odmission stoge ond hence the pelilioner hod no opporlunity to bring to the notice of lhe court oboul the foctuol ospects. He submils thot the petiiioner is contemploling to bring the obove focts to the notice of the Tribunol in the counter offidovit lo be filed in the contempt cose field by the respondent /opplicont before the Tribunol.

¶52

Leorned Stonding Counsel submits thot the Tribunol hos noi considered the obove ospects before ollowing the O.A., ond hence the some is lioble to be set oside.

¶53

On the other hond Sri M.Surender Roo, leorned Senior Counsel oppeoring for respondent / opplicont submits thol the community to which lhe opplicont belongs io is o Scheduled Coste Community ond the

¶54

¶55

competent^qulhority i.e., Tohslldor, Guntur issued certificote doted 15.10.1983, ond lhe some is in force os on lodoy. He submils ihot unless the certificole is concelled by the competent outhority by following due procedure, disciplinory outhority connol proceed with the inquiry.

¶56

He submits thot bosed on lhe option exercised by the oppliconl, he wos obsorbed into the services of the SPMCTL with effect from l.ll.2008 ond from thot dote os per the ogreement enlered into between lhe employees of the SPMCIL ond the Union of lndio, he is deemed to hove been retired from the service of the Securily Printing^press, which is under the control of Governmenl of lndio, ond hence from the soid dote, he is entitled for pension for the services rendered by him in the Securily printing Press. He submits thot by the soid dote, no disciplinory inquiry is pending ogoinst the opplicont, ond hence denying the pension from lhe soid doie is illegol ond orbilrory.

¶57

He submils thot the chorge hos been fromed during the yeor 2OO9 ond even ofter eleven yeors, there is no progress, ond the motter is slill pending before the compeient outhority ond the opplicont is cooperoting in the inquiry. He furlher submits thol opplicont retired from service on 31.08.2015, ond due to non-poyment of full pension, he is focing severe hordship. The Tribunol considering oll the focts ond circumslonces, ollowed the O.A., ond gove liberty to the respondents 1o

¶58

loke oction depending on the result of the inquiry. Therefore, no

¶59

exceplion con be token.

¶60

Leorned Senior Counsel further submits thot the opplicont is seeking for pension, for the period he rendered service in ihe petitloner - orgonizotion ond os per the settlement entered into between the employees of SPMCIL ond the Union of lndio, i1 is the Union of lndio which hos to poy the pension ond considering this foct, the Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.4237l of 20lB doted 23..l1.2018 closed lhe writ petilion. Therefore, the^petilioner connot contend ihot it is not lioble to^poy pensron

¶61

With lhese overments, the leorned Senior Counsel soughl to dismiss the writ petition.

¶62

From the moteriol on record, ond os^per the overments mode in the opplicotion filed before the Tribunol, ii could be seen thol^the respondent/opplicont is ossoiling the oction of ihe^petitioner in^{not poying} him pension for the^period he worked under^the Security^{PrinlingPress,} which wos under the control of the^{petitioner. The focls on record} disclose thol the opplicont^wos oppointed^{on 23.,l2.1983ond rose to the} codre of Inspector (Control) by 18.10.2001, ond subsequently^{owing to the} formotion of SPMCIL, he exerclsed oplion, opting to^{work in the newly} formed Corporoiion, ond his cose^{is lhot os per ordersdoted 29.05.2009,} his services were obsorbed in the SPMCIL^{with effeclfrom l.l l.20OB ond}

¶63

¶64

from the soid dote he^is deemed^{to hove been retired fromthe service of}

¶65

the^petitioner ond, therefore,^{submittedhis pensionpopers on 10.06.2009} seeking^pension with effect^{from 1.11.2008.for the period he served in the} Security Printing Press,^{which wos under the controlof the pelitioner} - Union of Indio. The^{groundsof relief mentionedof porogrophNo.5 in the}

¶66

opplicotion before the Tribunol^{reods os under:}

¶67

l . Whethe|the opplicont is entitled^{for pensionond pensionory benefih?} 2. Whe'ther the responden'ts ore^{justifiedin not setlling ihe pensionof the} oppliconl in spile of his exercising^option.

¶68

Whethelthe respondents ore iustified^{in nol moking poymenteven ofler} obsorption of lhe opplicon't^{in SPMCILon 29-5-2009, w.e.f . l .l 1 .2008.}

¶69

Whether the respondenls ore iustified in^{not mokingpensionond olher} benefits on por with other employees^{when there ore nodisciplinory} proceedings pending ogoinst him os on the dote of obsorplion.

¶70

5, The o'ther^{grounds will} be urged ot^{the time of heoring."}

¶71

The respondent/opplicont olong^{with the moteriol popers filed copy}

¶72

of memorondum of setllement orrived^{of duringlhe course of conciliotion}

¶73

proceedings under Seclion l2(3) of lhe lndus'triol Disputes ocl,^{1947 before}

¶74

the Chief Lobour Commissioner^(C) on^{15.09.2008,ond Clouse l3 of the}

¶75

soid settlement, 1o the extenl relevont,^{reods os under:}

¶76

"Employees recruited before ln Jonuory,^{2004 wouldbe eligiblefor} pension os per Rule 37-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 os omended^{from time} to time, on the bosis of the combined^{service rendered by them in lhe Govt.} ond in the Corporolion os opplicoble to^{publicsectorundertokingsor} oulonomous bodies creoted by conversion of^{governmenl deportments of ter} the no'tificotion of Rule 37-A. The^poyment of^pension ond^{the fomilypension} sholl be mode in lhe some monner ond on^{lhe someporome'tersos the} poyment is mode lo the retirees from the governmenl service.^{The poyment} of pension ond fomily^pension sholl be^{guoron'leed by theCentrol} Governmenl.

¶77

These employees will olso be eligible, ot their option,^{to receive pro-} roto retkemenl benefits folihe services rendered under^theCenlrol Government in occordonce wilh the CCS^{(Pension) Rules ond the orders} issued lhereunder by lhe Cenlrol Governmenl^(to be colculoled^on lhe^{poy &} ollowonce drown immediolely before obsorptionⁱⁿ the^{Corporolion), from 'the} Consolidoted fund of lndio. Receipt of^pro+olo relirement benefi'ts^{would not} offect poy fixotion of'ter obsorption in the Corporotion ond^{pro-rolo relirement} benefils sholl be poid within six monlhs from the dote of obsorption."

¶78

¶79

From the^{obove it is cleor thot the employeesrecruitedprior to} 1'l.2oo4wouldbeeligibleforpensionosperRule3T.AoftheCCS (Pension)^{Rules, 1972, os omendedfrom time to time' on ihe bosisof the} combined^{servicesrendered by them in the Governmentond in the} Corporoiion^{os opplicoble iothe public sectorundertokings or} outonomous^{bodies creoted by conversionof Government deportments} ofter lhe^{notificotion of Rule 37-A' Further it is olso cleor thot the} employees^{who hove opted for SPMCIL' would be treoted os hoving} retired^{from service of the Governmentof lndio ond would be ellgible for} pension os^{stoied obove'}

¶80

ln^{pursuonceof ihe obovesettlementdoted l5'09'2008'options} were^{given to the employees'ond the cose of the respondentis lhothe} exercised^{his option ond vide order doted 29 '05'2OOqhis serviceswere} obsorbed^{with effect from 01' l 1 '2OOB' So' for the services rendered by ihe} respondent^{in ihe Securlty Printing Press' which wos under the control of} Government^{of lndio' he is entitled for poyment of pensionfrom the writ} pelitioner

¶81

When ihe^{respondent filed o coniempt before the Tribunolfor not} implementing^{its order' the SPMCIL filed W'P'No'42371 of 2OlB ond vide} order^{doted23'11'2018'o DivisionBench of this court while closing the writ} petition bosed^{on lhe submissionof the leornedcounsel for the petitioner} ond the^{respondent-opplicontherein'held os under:}

¶82

¶83

"Accepting this sto'temenl,^{we close the writ petition moking il cleor} thotneithersMPClLnoronyofofficiolsshollbeheldresponsibleinrelolionlo thegrievonceofthefirs'trespondent/opplicontinOANo'478of20l3which wosln the coniext of^{the service rendered by him ot the time when the} Securily Printing^{Press wos under the control of lhe Government of lndio ond} hiscloiminreloliontolhepensionondpensionorybenefilsdUeforthesoid period."

¶84

The^petitioner herein^{is the2nd respondentin the obovesoid writ} petition ond if it is oggrieved, it should^{hove filed on oppeol,but no} oppeol is filed ogoinsl^{the soidorder, ond thusthe soidorderhos become} finol^qnd is binding on^{the wrii petitioner.}

¶85

Since the respondenl^{is cloimingpension for the periodhe rendered} services in the Security^{PrintingPress which wos under the control of the} Government of lndio, the^{contentionof the leorned counsel for the} pelitioner thot it is not responsible to^{poy pension ond thol it is the SPMCIL} where the respondent^{is working,is lioble to poy pension,connot be} counlenonced. lt is^{olso not known how the pelilioner con mointoin'the} writ^petition for the some relief,^{whichhos been clorified by this courtin} W.P.No.42371 of 2018 doted^{23..lI .2018.}

¶86

The next issue is with regord to^{pendency of lhe disciplinory} proceedings. The odmitted focl is thol the coste certificote^{issued by the} compelenl outhority to lhe^{respondent/opplicont} 1S subsisting os on todoy, ond the some^is not concelled^{by ihe competentouthorityin lerms} of the^provisions of the A.P.^(SC,ST &^{BC) Regulotion of Issue of Communlly} Certificotes Aci, 1993 ond the^{Rules mode there under. However, the} inquiry iir thot regord ls^{pending before the Collectorond the Disirict}

¶87

¶88

Mogistrote, Guntur. Therefore, unress the competent outhority concers the certificote by foilowing rhe due process of row, petirioner is nor justified in withholding the pension ond other terminol benefits due to the o pplico n i.

¶89

The Tribunol. considering oI the obove focis ond circumstonces, ollowed the wrir petition. ond further, reft it open ro toke oction os is deemed fit ofter verificotion of the cosie certificote of rhe oppriconi by the competent outhorily. Hence, no exceplion con be token to the

¶90

impugned order of the Tribunol.

¶91

ln view of the obove focts ond circumstonces, we do not find ony reoson io interdicl the order possed by the Tribunol in exercise of judiciol review under Arlicle 226 of the Conslitution of lndio.

¶92

Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶93

lnterlocuiory opplicotions pending, if ony, sholl stond closed. No

¶94

order os 10 costs.

¶95

SD/. K.VENKAIAH I ASSISTANT REGI AR //TRUE COPY//

¶96

SECTION OFFICER

¶97

To, 1. One CC to Sri M. Srikanth. Advocate IOPUCI

¶98

One CC to Sri Ch. A. B. Satyanarayana, Advbcate tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies IVBC^.</sup>

¶99

HIGH COURT

¶100

DATED: 0210212021

¶101

t{ s 14
:)
o 23 rEB$21
l<

¶102

ORDER

¶103

WP.No.3646 of 2019

¶104

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶105

WITHOUT COSTS

¶106

$$A*'

Union of India v. G. Ganesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. G. Ganesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Abc Engineering Works Vs State of Bank of India

M. Srinivas Vs Union of India

V.Rajesham Vs The Union of India

Union of India and 2 others Vs Sri.P Balarama Murthy

Chennupati Vijaya Rani Vs State of Telangana.

Sri. Manji Patel Vs Indian Bank