RAMAKANT KRISHNA MALIK Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired employee of the respondent no.2, Public Works Department, Goa, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seek following reliefs :

(2.) Shorn of the minute details of the service record of the petitioner, a few dates need a mention. The petitioner was recruited, by an appointment order dated 10/07/1991 in the post of "Helper" by the respondent No.2 and it is his contention that he served the said Department with an unblemished service record barring one adverse action proposed against him, till he retired on attaining an age of superannuation on 30/04/2020. The only blemish in his service record is an order of suspension issued to him on 12/12/2016 on the ground of alleged unauthorised absence from service. The absence has been justified by the petitioner by stating that on account of the matrimonial discord which he faced at his home front, he was mentally disturbed, constraining him to be not attendant on duties. On a representation being made to the Department, by order dated 14/08/2018, the suspension order came to be revoked by exercising the powers conferred by clause (C) of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1965. Pursuant to the said order, he resumed his duties w.e.f. 16/08/2018. The Department itself on 02/06/2020 was pleased to regularize the unauthorized absence of the petitioner and took a decision not to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against him for the period of his absence. By the very said order issued by the Principal Chief Engineer of the respondent No.2, the period of suspension of the petitioner from 12/12/2016 to 14/08/2018 came to be treated as period spent on duty and it was directed that he shall be paid full pay and allowances for the said period subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already availed by him during the period of suspension. His period of absence from 03/06/2016 to 11/02/2016 was also regularized as per the leave Rules in force. By passing of the said order, the fraction of the petitioner's service which was interrupted came to be regularized resulting in rendering continuous service from 10/07/1991 till he attended the age of superannuation on 30/04/2020.

(3.) The grievance raised by the petitioner however pertains to the non-release of his retiral benefits and the aforesaid predicament is not a reason for denial of his retiral benefits. The non-payment is stemmed from his matrimonial strife and though prior to 6 months of his retirement, he had forwarded the necessary papers so as to enable the Department to work out his retiral benefits, in terms of the the CCS Rules (Pension Rules), till the institution of the petition, and to be precise, on 01/12/2020, he was denied the retiral benefits and though more than period of 6 months has expired, no provisional pension is released in his favour. The correspondence placed on record reflect that on 18/03/2020 the pension papers of the petitioner came to be remitted back by the office of Directorate of Accounts, Panaji to his parent Department by seeking certain clarifications, one of which pertained to his period of unauthorised absence. Another objection was in respect of furnishing single photograph in Form No.III and justification was sought from the Department for submitting a single photograph. The first deficiency which was pointed in respect to the period of the absence was cleared by the employer, by passing an order dated 02/06/2020. As far as submission on the single photograph is concerned the petitioner on 06/08/2020 addressed a justification by stating that there was an existing matrimonial discord between himself and his spouse and she had instituted the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against him. By the said communication he also submitted a joint photograph of himself and his wife along with the xerox of election card of his wife, Shashikala. In spite of the said compliance, the petitioner was in receipt of letter dated 14/08/2020 from his employer, Respondent No.2 thereby inviting his attention to the order passed in DV proceedings instituted by his wife whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month towards her maintenance from the date of the order, being 25/05/2015. The Department therefore raised an objection that the case is till pending and therefore he was asked to furnish a single photograph. The final judgment copy was directed to be submitted and it was assumed that since the joint photograph has been submitted the issue has been settled. The justification was once again sought by letter dated 13/10/2020, which was responded by the petitioner on 26/10/2020, thereby ensuring compliance of the deficiencies pointed out by submitting 4 copies of the passport size photographs and clarifying that a joint photograph was also submitted. He also clarified that the case between himself and his wife is still pending and has not amicably settled as assumed by the office. He requested to process the pension papers and accordingly submitted the clarification to the Account's Department.