STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SATYADEO NANDAKISHORE AWASHTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Maharashtra, Home Department, challenged order dated 21.7.1999, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Nagpur, whereby the MAT allowed the original application in favour of the applicants/legal representatives of Satyadeo Awasthi the deceased employee, by passing the following order.

(2.) There Is No serious issue with regard to the fact that the respondent employee was exonerated from the charges. It was the reason for not granting the retirement benefits i.e. pension and gratuity at the relevant time. Once the employee is exonerated, the pensionary benefits and the interest because of delay on the amount so not paid, in our view, just cannot be denied, because natural consequences about the situation would be that there are no charges and/or enquiry and the person, who is retired, is entitled for the pensionary benefits in accordance with law. The denial of the pensionary benefits/amount to the respondent employee just cannot be overlooked merely because the Department/petitioner decided to grant benefits/pension from the date of order of exoneration. It is settled that the pensionary benefits is a constitutional right of employee, who has worked till the date of retirement. The petitioner Department if failed to make payment on due date, there are provisions which itself permit the employee to claim interest. There is nothing on record to show that enquiry was delayed at the instance of respondentemployee. Even otherwise, once the respondentemployee is exonerated, we are inclined to observe that he is entitled for pensionary amount with interest because this exoneration brings the position back and it is required to be concluded that the petitioner Department has not paid the amount on due date.

(3.) No Gratuity Shall Be Paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and/or issue of final orders thereon. But, once the employee is exonerated, there is no question of detaining the said amount also. But the fact of not making full payment/retirement benefits because of alleged departmental enquiry should not be read against the employee, specially when he is exonerated from all the charges. The gratuity with interest, therefore, in such situation cannot be denied.