LexLAJPAT RAI MEHTA versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION & POWER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 657 LAJPAT RAI MEHTA A v. -.j SECRET ARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION & POWER, CHANDIGARH (Civil Appeal No. 7309 of 2008) B DECEMBER 16, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] SERVICE LAW· c Pension and other retiral benefits - Basis for calculation - HELD: Should be the last pay drawn - In the instant case, employee remained on unauthorized leave from 30.4.1981 till 30.9.1994, the date of his superannuation - After 30.4.1981, he having not worked cannot be held to have D earned increments or benefits on revision of scale of pay - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 136 and 142. CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: Articles 136 and 142 - Jurisdiction under - Exercise of - Conduct of party - Employee remaining on unauthorized E leave for 13 years - Calculation of pensionary benefits - Court while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction is entitled to see the conduct of parties so as to enable it to adjust equities - It is also duty of Court to see that public exchequer should not unnecessarily be depleted despite the fact that F --1 State has failed and/or neglected to initiate disciplinary proceedings against employee - Equity. The plaintiff-appellant joined the service under the State Government in 1959. He remained on long leave from 1976 to1980. From 8.4.1981, he proceeded on G earned leave for 23 days and thereafter remained on unauthorized leave till he retired from service on ) 30.9.1994. Thereafter, the appellant filed a suit for > declaration that he was entitled to retrial benefits of - 657 H 658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1f s.c9 A pension etc. The trial court dismissed the suit but the first appellate court decreed the suit. When the decree was put to execution, the State filed an objection u/s 47 CPC 1c contending that retrial benefits of the appellant would be· calculated· on the basis of the last pay drawn by him in 8 1981. The objection was rejected by the executing court but allowed by the High Court in the revision petition filed by the State. In the instant appeal filed by the plaintiff, it was contended for the appellant that he having been allowed ,... c to retire with effect from 30.9.1994, that date should form the basis for calculating his retrial benefits. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The suit centered round the question as . to whether the appellant would be entitled to. the D pensionary benefits keeping in view the fact that he had worked for the qualifying period specified therefore, and the question as to the basis on which the pensionary benefits would be calculated did not arise for \.- consideration therein. The declaratory relief granted by E the appellate court could not have extended to grant of other benefits to which the appellant was not otherwise legally entitled. The rules prevalent for calculation of pensionary benefits were, therefore, required to be followed. [Para 10] [663-D-E-H;· 664-A] F 1.2. Indisputably, the appellant was on unauthorized absence from 30.4.1981 to 30.9.1994. He had not worked for 13 years. The last pay was drawn by him in the year~ 1981. He was not drawing any salary on the dab~ of his superannuation. The pensionary benefits, therefore, should be calculated only on that basis. Thereafter, he, G having not worked, cannot be held to have earned increments or benefit in the revised scal.e of pay. [Para 10 and 13] [663-D; 664-A-B] 1.3. Remaining on unauthorized leave for such a l long time is a misconduct. As the State omitted to take H· '"' LAJPAT RAI MEHTA v. V. SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF 659 PUNJAB, DEP. OF IRRI. & POWER, CHANDIGARH any disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, he A obtained the benefit of grant of pension. The appellat~ i court declared his entitlement to ob~in the pensiona~ benefits only because he was allowed to superannuat~ on 30.9.1994. In any event in view of the conduct of the appellant, this Court would not exercise its discretionary B jurisdiction in his favour. This Court under Article 136 and/or 142 of the Constitution need not grant relief to a litigant, although it may be lawful for it to do so. The Court while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction is entitled to see the conduct of the parties so as to enable it to c adjust equities. It is also the duty of the Court to see that .... the public exchequer should not -unnecessarily be depleted despite the fact that t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.