STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus SUDARSHANA CHATTERJEE

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 10-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
849
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
v.
SUDARSHANA CHATTERJEE
(Civil Appeal No. 9300 of 2019)
DECEMBER 10, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Retiral benefits – Denial of – Propriety – Employee (a
Lecturer in a Medical College in State of U.P.) applied for the post
of Associate Professor/Reader in a Medical College in the State
of Chhattisgarh through proper channel – After being appointed
she applied for two years leave for joining the post in Chhattisgarh
–  While the leave application was pending, she joined the post in
Chhattisgarh – After superannuation from the  Chhattisgarh
College, she sought retiral benefits from the State of  U.P. which
was denied  – Writ petition challenging denial of  retiral benefits
– High Court allowed the petition directing the State to pass fresh
orders in the light of the observations made by the Court – The
State considered the case afresh and rejected the case of the
employee – Writ petition against the order – High Court directed
personal presence of the officer who had passed the order –
Petition was allowed holding that request for voluntary retirement
could not have been rejected as the same already stood quashed
by earlier order of High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:
The employee is not entitled to retiral benefits – The High Court
while directing the State to pass fresh orders was not right in putting
restriction that the same would be passed in the light of
observations made by the Court – High Court was also not right
in directing personal presence of the Officer.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  The High Court did not keep in view that even
though the respondent’s leave application dated 30.04.2004
was pending consideration, the respondent on her own went
and joined Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS)
on 15.06.2004 and this has been suppressed by the respondent.
The respondent remained in the service of two State
   [2019] 14 S.C.R. 849
849
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
Governments i.e. State of UP and State of Chhattisgarh-CIMS
and she is alleged to have drawn salary from both the State
Governments for the period from June, 2004 to October, 2004.
The High Court did not keep in view the conduct of the
respondent. [Para 16] [856-E-G]
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Achal Singh
(2018) 17 SCC 578 : [2018] 9 SCR 912 – referred
to.
2. The High Court while directing the State Government
to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, was not right in
putting restrictions upon the appellants by saying that the fresh
orders will have to be passed in the light of the observations
made by the High Court. [Para 17] [857-A-B]
3. The High Court was not right in directing the Principal
Secretary to appear in the court and explain the reason for
passing the order dated 04.01.2019. Observing that merely
because an order has been passed by the officer, it does not
warrant the personal presence of the officer in the Court and
summoning of officers to the Court and eventually affect the
public at large. [Para 19] [857-F-G]
Shri N.K. Janu, Deputy Director, Social Welfare
Forestary Division, Agra and Others v. Lakshmi
Chandra (2019) 6 SCALE 236 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2018] 9 SCR 912
referred to
Para 1
(2019) 6 SCALE 236
relied on
Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9300
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order  dated 24.08.2018 of the  High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 65084 of 2015.
With
Civil Appeal No. 9301 of 2019.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr.Adv. (AAG, U.P), Ankit Goel, Ms. Kirti
Khangoret, Gopal Singh Chauhan, Advs. for the Appellants.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
851
Kuriakose Varghese, V. Shyamohan, Surya Prakash,  Ms. Piyusha
Singh, Ms. Isha Ghai, Kmnp Law, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.10087 of 2019 has been filed
by the appellants against the judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No.65084 of 2015 in
and by which the High Court has quashed the order dated 01.04.2015
passed by the appellants denying retiral benefits to the respondent on
account of her having joined the service in Chhattisgarh Institute of
Medical Sciences and the High Court directed the appellants to pass
fresh order in accordance with law in the light of observations made
by the High Court. Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.10542 of 20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.