Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2875 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Sanyukta Chandhoke

2005-11-07

S.K.KESHOTE, S.N.JHA

body2005
Judgment 1. This special appeal by the State is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 25.04.2005 is S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4043/2004, allowing the writ petition of the respondent. The respondent had filed the writ petition seeking direction upon the appellants to release the amount of pension due from 10.07.1984 with interest. The learned Single Judge accepting the case of the respondent that she had voluntarily retired from service, directed the appellants to pay retiral dues alongwith interest at the rate of 12% from the date of retirement. The respondent was also allowed cost of Rs. 25,000/-. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent was appointed as a Teacher Gr.III on 19.07.1966. From 10.07.1984 she remained unauthorizedly absent from the school. No step by either side appears to have been taken till the respondent approached the State Human Rights Commission making grievance of non finalization of the retiral dues. On receipt of notice from the Commission on 111.2003 an order was passed by the District Education Officer (Elementary), Dausa, vide Memo No. 6948, dated 111.2003, terminating the respondents services with effect from 10.07.1984 forenoon. 3. The case of the respondent is that on 09.07.1984 she had submitted application before the school authorities seeking voluntary retirement from the service but she was not informed of the order, and, therefore, in terms of Clause (b) of Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules her request to voluntarily retire, would be deemed to have been accepted. The case of the appellants is that the respondent did not make any application seeking voluntary retirement and the learned Single Judge committed error in holding her entitled to retiral dues on the premise that she is a retired employee of the State Government. 4. It is not in dispute that an employee, who has put in ten years of service in the ordinary course becomes entitled to pension besides other retiral dues. No doubt, in the instant case, in view of the unauthorized absence of the respondent it was open to the appellants to initiate departmental proceeding against her and award suitable penalty which she could disentitle her to pension and/or other retiral dues in accordance with the law but as indicated at the outset, the appellants, did nothing of the kind. No doubt, in the instant case, in view of the unauthorized absence of the respondent it was open to the appellants to initiate departmental proceeding against her and award suitable penalty which she could disentitle her to pension and/or other retiral dues in accordance with the law but as indicated at the outset, the appellants, did nothing of the kind. Having put in ten years of service, we are satisfied that in the absence of any order of penalty disentitling her to pension and/or other retiral dues, the respondent became entitled to pension and other retiral dues in accordance with law. The only aspect which requires consideration is whether the respondent was also entitled to interest on the alleged delayed payment of retiral dues. 5. It is well known that interest is awarded as compensation for some loss suffered by the person concerned. In the instant case, if the respondent was entitled to pension and other retiral dues, the appellants should have taken steps to fix pension and other dues and paid the amount to her but in the facts and circumstances, in view of her continued unauthorized absence till she attained the age of superannuation, the question for consideration is whether the respondent should be allowed interest. Where a person retires in the ordinary course on reaching the age of superannuation the matter stands on much simpler footing but where he remains unauthorizedly absent for years and attains the age of superannuation in the meantime, we do not think it would be appropriate exercise of discretion to award interest. 6. The submission of the Counsel for the parties centered around whether the respondent stood voluntarily retired from the service or her services were terminated on account of unauthorized absence. Since, this has some bearing on the question of interest, we heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the point at some length. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that from the documents brought on the record it would appear that concerned authorities of the State treated the case as one of voluntary retirement and, therefore, the appellants cannot take a different stand at this stage. 7. As indicated above, by order dated 111.2003 (Supra), the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from 10.07.1984 itself . The said order was passed on receipt of notice from Human Rights Commission. 7. As indicated above, by order dated 111.2003 (Supra), the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from 10.07.1984 itself . The said order was passed on receipt of notice from Human Rights Commission. It is not necessary to go into the question whether the service of an employee can be terminated on account of continued absence without taking recourse to disciplinary proceedings and given retrospective effect. No such argument has been advanced nor it would serve any useful purpose as in the meantime the respondent attained the age of superannuation and, therefore, she cannot be reinstated or restored to the post even assuming that the order was not correct. The order however shows that the authority intended to terminate the services of the respondent rather than retire her. It is well settled that nature of the order is to be construed by reference to the words used in the order rather than heading of the order or the description/interpretation of the order in other documents referred to by the Counsel. 8. As a matter of fact, we have no reason to doubt the correctness of the stand of the appellant that there is no record of the respondent making any application for voluntary retirement. If that is so, the question of deemed voluntary retirement with passage of time as contemplated in Clause (b) of Rule 244 (1) of the Rules does not arise. We are inclined to think in the facts and circumstances that it was a case of unauthorized absence from the duty simpliciter from 10.07.1984. We are not able to appreciate the conduct of the respondent in approaching the Human Rights Commission and the Commission issuing a notice in respect of a service matter. 9. We are satisfied that it was a case of continued unauthorized absence on the part of the respondent, we do not think that the award of interest was warranted. We are further satisfied that the respondent was also not entitled to cost of the proceedings. 10. In these premises, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge by deleting the interest and cost part therefrom and dispose of this appeal with a direction to the appellants to immediately fix and finalize the pension and other retiral dues admissible to the respondent and pay the same to her within a period of two months from receipt of copy of the order. 11. The appeal stands disposed of in the terms indicated above.