Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith vs Government Of Gujarat

2024 INSC 935 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. ……………. OF 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.11733-11734 of 2023)

NUTAN BHARTI GRAM VIDYAPITH … Appellant(s)

VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT AND ANR. … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Private College1 covered under the Grant-in-Aid

scheme of the State Government has filed the present appeal

impugning the orders passed by the High Court2 dated 26.07.20223 and

21.04.20234.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2024.12.05 17:12:43 IST Reason: 1 Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith 2 High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad 3 Letters Patent Appeal Number 1456 of 2010 4 Miscellaneous Civil Application (for Review) Number 01 of 2022

Page 1 of 10

3. At the time of hearing, the learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellant submitted that he only wishes to press the

claim regarding liability of the appellant-college to pay retiral benefits

to the respondent-employee.

4. Briefly noticed, the facts are that the respondent no.2 was

appointed as lecturer by the appellant. On account of certain

misconduct, he was issued a chargesheet on 07.08.1993. After inquiry,

he was dismissed from service on 06.06.1994.

4.1 Aggrieved by the dismissal, the respondent no.2 preferred

an appeal to the Joint Director of Higher Education (appellate

authority). The said appeal was dismissed as not maintainable vide

order dated 15.11.1994.

4.2 By order dated 20.03.1996, in an application5 filed by the

respondent no.2 before the High Court, his appeal before the Joint

Director of Higher Education was held to be maintainable and the same

was directed to be heard by appellate authority-respondent no.1. The

appeal was allowed vide order dated 21.08.1996.

4.3 Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the appellant

preferred an application6 before the High Court where the above said

5 Special Civil Application Number 12822 of 1994 6 Special Civil Application No. 7111 of 1996

Page 2 of 10 order was set aside and the matter was directed to be heard afresh vide

order dated 07.10.1996. Thereafter vide order dated 02.03.2000, the

appeal filed by the private respondent was allowed by appellate

authority. He was directed to be reinstated as the dismissal was found

to be an extreme punishment.

5. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order before the

High Court by filing an application7. The Learned Single Judge vide

order dated 30.06.2010, noticing the fact that the private respondent

had already superannuated, upheld the order of reinstatement passed

in the aforesaid appeal. However, the High Court directed the

appellant to pay back wages to the extent of 75%. The aforesaid order

was challenged by the appellant by filing Letters Patent Appeal8. Vide

order dated 26.07.2022, the appeal was disposed of while passing the

following directions:

“Private respondent No.2 would not be entitled for any backwages as ordered by learned Single Judge.

Services of the private respondent No.2 shall be treated as continuous service from the date of his appointment till date of his superannuation. Private

7 Special Civil Application Number 4357 of 2000 8 Appeal No. 1456 of 2010 Page 3 of 10 respondent shall be entitled for all the retiral benefits of his employment.

All the benefits shall be granted to the private respondent No.2 by the appellant as well as by the State authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with interest, as per the prevailing policy in such cases.

If the amount is not paid within a period of eight weeks, the appellant as well as respondent authority shall pay the entire amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till it is actually paid.”

6. A perusal of the aforesaid direction shows that the back

wages granted to the respondent no.2 were set aside and the appellant

as well as the State were directed to pay retiral dues to the respondent

No.2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the State as well as the

appellant filed Review Petitions9. The review filed by the State was

allowed vide order dated 21.04.2023 and it was directed that the

appellant shall be liable to pay the retiral dues. The order as modified

is extracted below:

“7. We do recollect that the parties – the appellant University and the employee (original respondent No.2) have agreed for such order and,

9 Miscellaneous Civil Application Number 01 of 2022 and Mescellaneous Civil Application Number 01 of 2023

Page 4 of 10 therefore, the order was passed directing to grant benefits to the employee. However, through oversight, we have observed appellant as well as respondent – State shall be liable to pay the amount. Hence, we hereby modify the order. Paragraphs 6 sub-para (3) and (4) shall read as under:

“All the benefits shall be granted to the private respondent No.2 by the appellant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of today’s order along with interest, as per the prevailing policy in such cases.

If the amount is not paid within a period of eight weeks, the appellant shall pay the entire amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till it is actually paid”.”

7. Aggrieved against the aforesaid modification, where the

direction has been issued to the appellant to pay retiral dues to the

private respondent, the college is before this Court.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that

the order passed by the High Court is not in consonance with the

Scheme10 applicable for grant of retiral dues to an employee of an

10 Pension Scheme for the teaching/ non-teaching staff in the Gram Vidyapeeth, Government of Gujarat, Education Department, Resolution Number GUS/1089-5369/B Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar dated 13.07.1990

Page 5 of 10 aided institution. The relevant paragraph of the Scheme applicable is

extracted below:

“11. The pension papers of the members of the staff entitled to pension, gratuity, etc. under the scheme should be prepared in case of Gram Vidyapeeth staff by the Principal of the Gram Vidyapeeth on the basis of service record maintained by the Gram Vidyapeeth concerned. The entries in the service book of the staff will be made and attested by the Principal of Gram Vidyapeeths and in case of Principal, by the management of the Gram Vidyapeeth concerned and such entries should be verified by the Director of Higher Education of the officer authorized by him and a certificate of verification recorded in the service books. The Director of Higher Education should sanction the pension, gratuity, etc. and forward the pension completed to the Director of Pension and Provisions Fund. The pension, gratuity, etc. so sanctioned will be payable from the Government Treasurers. The Director of pension and Provident Fund will produced be clean and issue a pension payment order and/or gratuity payment order on the Treasury, from which the pensioner illegible pension gratuity, under intimation to Director of Higher Education.”

Page 6 of 10

9. Learned counsel argued that the aforesaid Paragraph 11 of

the Scheme provides that the liability to pay pension is on the State

Government. The direction given by the High Court in the order

passed in the Review Application is not in consonance with the

aforesaid provisions. Hence, the same be set aside and the State

should be held liable to pay retiral dues to the respondent no.2.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted

that the conduct of the appellant is to be seen before putting any

liability with the State to pay retiral dues to an employee. It is a case in

which the respondent no.1/appellate authority vide order dated

02.03.2000 directed reinstatement of the respondent no.2. However,

thereafter the college continued litigating, raising frivolous grounds,

as a result of which, the State is now sought to be burdened with liability

to pay pension to the respondent no.2, who had not actually worked for

the requisite period. More than two decades have passed thereafter

and during this period, respondent no.2 attained the age of

superannuation. In support, reliance has been placed upon judgment

of this Court in Educational Society, Tumsar and Others vs. State of

Maharashtra and Others11.

11 (2016) 3 SCC 512; 2016 SCC Online SC 93

Page 7 of 10

11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 supported

the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant while stating

that in terms of the laws applicable to the appellant, being Grant-in-Aid

Institution, the duty to pay retiral dues lies with the State, which cannot

escape it’s liability.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

paper book.

13. It is not a matter of dispute that the appellant is an institution

entitled to Grant-in-Aid and the employees thereof are entitled to

pensionary benefits in terms of the aforesaid Scheme. The only

argument raised by the learned counsel for the State is regarding

conduct of the appellant in fighting litigation after the State had

directed reinstatement of the respondent no.2 and finally settling the

matter before the High Court. In our opinion, the same cannot be fatal

for the appellant and burden it with the retiral benefits of respondent

no.2 whereas the Scheme provides for otherwise. There is no

exception provided in the Scheme to enable the State to deny payment

of retiral benefits to an employee of the Grant-in-Aid Institution under

certain circumstances and shift the burden on the institution.

14. The judgment relied upon by the State may not have

application in the facts of the case, wherein it was found that the action Page 8 of 10 of the Education Institution was without jurisdiction, transgressing its

power to terminate its employee. If the facts of the present case are

concerned, no such finding has been recorded by the appellate

authority. There were serious charges against the respondent no.2

which included inter alia instigation of students to go on strike,

improper behaviour with the co-employees, attempt to pollute the

atmosphere in the institution, violation of rules and regulations of the

institution and involvement in the activities which may cause damage

to the institution. Out of 30 charges, 10 were proved. After inquiry,

with a view to maintain discipline in the institution, it was found

appropriate that the respondent no.2 be dismissed from service.

However, the appellate authority found the charges established to be

trivial in nature and opined that those should have been sorted out. The

appellate authority found that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh

and the issues could have been resolved by way of discussion.

15. The appellant, keeping in view the discipline in the

institution, thought it appropriate to challenge the same. In such

circumstances, it cannot be opined that it’s conduct was such that it

should be burdened with the retiral benefits of delinquent employee.

It is not the opinion of the appellate authority or any Court that the

action taken by the appellant against the respondent no.2 was without

Page 9 of 10 jurisdiction as was the case in Educational Society, Tumsar and

Others (supra).

16. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are allowed.

The impugned order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the High Court,

allowing the Review Application filed by the State and dismissing the

Review Application filed by the appellant, is set aside. The Review

Application filed by the appellant is allowed. As a consequence, the

order dated 26.07.2022 is modified. The consequence thereof is that

the State, respondent no.1 shall be liable to pay retiral dues to

respondent no.2.

……………….……………..J. (J.K. MAHESHWARI)

……………….……………..J. (RAJESH BINDAL) New Delhi December 02, 2024.

Page 10 of 10