M.K.Jain (Dead)Thr. Lrs. vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh
- Neutral2018 INSC 606
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employee's termination has been upheld on charges proved in a departmental inquiry with concurrent findings by the lower courts, the Supreme Court will not interfere with those findings merely on appeal. Where an employee was under suspension during the period of a departmental inquiry, the State remains liable to verify and pay any subsistence allowance or other dues that accrued during the suspension period, with interest at 18% per annum if payment was not made at the time, regardless of whether the employee has since died.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8872/2011
M.K. JAIN (DEAD) THR. LRS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. I.A. No.3 is allowed.
3. The termination of the appellant (since deceased) is under challenge.
4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Respondent No.2/Nigam was wound up in the year 2000 and the employees of the Nigam were absorbed by the State of Uttarakhand in different departments.
5. Having regard to the charges which have been proved in the inquiry and the concurrent findings thereon, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings.
6. We direct the State to verify as to whether the appellant-M.K. Jain (died on 07.12.2007) had been given all his dues including the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. This exercise shall be done within three months from today. In case, it is found that any amount was due to be paid to the deceased appellant, his legal heirs Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by shall be paid the same with interest @ 18% per annum, NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2018.07.18 17:03:38 IST Reason: within a month thereafter.
7. Subject to the above, the appeal is disposed of.
1 8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
9. There shall be no orders as to costs.
.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] NEW DELHI;
JULY 12, 2018.
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free