9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of Union of India's order dated September 17, 1982, under FR 25 declaring the appellant unfit to cross the efficiency bar as Assistant Engineer. 2. Entitlement of the appellant to interest on the delayed payment of his pension. Summary: Issue 1: Justification of Union of India's Order Under FR 25 The appellant, an Assistant Engineer in the Central Public Works Department, was placed under suspension on September 3, 1959, pending a departmental inquiry. Despite repeated representations, the suspension was revoked only on May 25, 1970. The departmental proceedings, however, continued, leading to an order of compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) on April 25, 1972. The appellant challenged this order under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and the High Court quashed the compulsory retirement, deeming it unjustified based on outdated and non-serious adverse remarks. The appellant was deemed to have continued in service until his normal retirement age on March 31, 1978. The High Court also criticized the Department for failing to pass an order under FR 54 regarding the appellant's pay and allowances during the suspension period. The Court ruled that the suspension was unjustified, entitling the appellant to full pay and allowances for that period. Despite this, the Department rejected the appellant's case for crossing the efficiency bar at the stage of Rs. 590 w.e.f. October 5, 1966, citing his failure to pass the departmental examination and unsatisfactory performance reports. The Supreme Court found that the Department's prolonged suspension and delayed departmental proceedings were unjust and motivated by mala fide intentions. The Court emphasized that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to be heard before any prejudicial order under FR 25 was made. The Court ruled that the competent authority's decision to enforce the efficiency bar was unjustified, especially after the appellant's retirement, and quashed the impugned orders. Issue 2: Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Payment of Pension The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had been subjected to undue harassment and financial loss due to the Department's actions. The Court directed the Director General of Works to allow the appellant to cross the efficiency bar retrospectively and re-fix his salary and pension accordingly. The appellant was also entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the difference in salary and pension due to the delayed payment. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed with costs. The Supreme Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Director General of Works to re-fix the appellant's salary and pension, allowing him to cross the efficiency bar retrospectively. The appellant was awarded interest at 12% per annum on the delayed payments, with the Government of India required to make the payment within four months.
|
