The state cannot refuse to pay retirement benefits just because the college is still fighting to reinstate a lecturer who has been delinquent, according to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court directed the Gujarat Government to provide retirement benefits to an employee who had been dismissed, despite ongoing challenges from a Grant-in-Aid Institution regarding his reinstatement. The Court noted that the Pension Scheme does not allow the State to refuse these benefits or shift the responsibility to the Institution. The Private College, which is part of the State’s Grant-in-Aid scheme, appealed against the High Court’s decisions, focusing on whether the college should be responsible for the employee’s retirement benefits.
Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal stated, “It is clear that the appellant is a Grant-in-Aid institution, and its employees are entitled to pension benefits under the Scheme.” Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel represented the Appellant, while AOR Swati Ghildiyal represented the Respondents. The second respondent was hired as a lecturer but was dismissed in 1994 due to misconduct. He appealed this dismissal to the Joint Director of Higher Education, but the appeal was deemed not maintainable. The High Court later ordered the case to be reviewed by the appellate authority and reinstated the employee, finding the dismissal to be excessively harsh.
The appellant contested the previous order in the High Court by submitting an application. The Single Judge noted that the private respondent had already retired and confirmed the reinstatement order. However, the High Court instructed the appellant to pay 75% of the back wages. The appellant then filed a Letters Patent Appeal against this order. The back wages awarded to respondent no.2 were canceled, and both the appellant and the State were ordered to pay the respondent’s retirement benefits. Dissatisfied with this decision, both the State and the appellant submitted Review Petitions, which resulted in the appellant being held responsible for the retirement benefits. In response to the order requiring the appellant to pay these benefits, the college took the matter to the Apex Court.
The Counsel for the Appellant-College referred to the Pension Scheme for teaching and non-teaching staff in the Gram Vidyapeeth, as outlined in the Gujarat Government Education Department Resolution Number GUS/1089-5369/B from July 13, 1990. They argued that Paragraph 11 of the Scheme states that the State Government is responsible for paying pensions. They claimed that the High Court’s directive in the Review Application did not align with these provisions. The State argued that the appellate authority had ordered the reinstatement of respondent no.2. However, the college continued to litigate on trivial grounds, which led to the State being unfairly burdened with the responsibility of paying a pension to respondent no.2, who had not worked the required duration.
The Bench began by stating that the Scheme does not allow the State to refuse payment of retirement benefits to an employee of a Grant-in-Aid Institution under any circumstances, shifting the responsibility to the institution. The Court highlighted serious allegations against respondent no.2, including encouraging student strikes, inappropriate behavior with colleagues, creating a negative environment, breaking institutional rules, and engaging in activities harmful to the institution. Out of 30 allegations, 10 were confirmed. Following an inquiry aimed at maintaining discipline, it was deemed necessary to dismiss respondent no.2. However, the appellate authority believed these issues could have been settled through discussion.
The appellant, prioritizing discipline, decided to contest this ruling. In this context, the Bench stated that it could not conclude that the appellant should bear the retirement benefits of the employee who misbehaved. Citing its previous ruling in Educational Society, Tumsar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, the Bench clarified that neither the appellate authority nor any Court found the appellant’s actions against respondent no.2 to be outside their authority, unlike in the earlier case. Consequently, the Bench granted the appeals, approved the Review Application from the appellant, and ruled that the State, as respondent no.1, is responsible for paying the retirement benefits to respondent no.2.
Cause Title: Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith v. Government of Gujarat & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 935]
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advoate Nikhil Goel, Advocate Pradhuman Gohil, AOR Taruna Singh Gohil, Advocates Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Rushabh N. Kapadia, Siddharth Singh, Siddhi Gupta
Respondents: Senior Advocates Bhaskar Tanna,Dr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Swati Ghildiyal,Advocates Devyani Bhatt, Dharita Malkan, Alok Kumar, AOR Khushboo Aakash Sheth
