1987 (2) TMI 507 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's order quashing the State Government's notice u/Art. 470(b) of the Civil Service Regulations.
2. Entitlement to pension and gratuity benefits post-retirement.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a miscellaneous application in a disposed writ petition.

Summary:

1. Validity of the High Court's Order Quashing the Notice:
The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court was correct in quashing the State Government's notice dated 29.1.86 issued u/Art. 470(b) of the Civil Service Regulations. The High Court had quashed the notice on the grounds that the allegations in the notice were the same as those in the earlier disciplinary proceedings, which had resulted in the respondent's dismissal. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the High Court had only quashed the dismissal order due to procedural lapses, not the charges themselves. Therefore, the State Government was within its rights to issue a fresh notice regarding the respondent's pension and gratuity.

2. Entitlement to Pension and Gratuity Benefits:
The Supreme Court clarified that the grant of pension is regulated by statutory rules, specifically the Civil Service Regulations. Article 470(b) allows for the reduction of pension if the service rendered has not been thoroughly satisfactory. The Court emphasized that while pension is a right earned by the government servant, it is subject to the approval of satisfactory service. The State Government has the authority to reduce or withhold pension if the employee's service is found to be unsatisfactory, even post-retirement, provided that the principles of natural justice are followed.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining a miscellaneous application in a writ petition that had already been finally disposed of. The respondent should have filed a separate petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution to challenge the notice dated 29.1.86. The High Court lacked jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings based on a new cause of action through a miscellaneous application.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and permitted the State Government to consider the respondent's reply to the show cause notice and proceed in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.