Summary
Under the Gujarat Government's pension scheme for Gram Vidyapeeth staff, retiral dues of an employee of a grant-in-aid college are sanctioned by the State and paid from the Treasury. The High Court could not shift that liability to the college because it had kept litigating against the employee's reinstatement. The scheme has no such exception, and the college's challenge was not shown to be without jurisdiction. The State was held liable.
Issues
- Whether the State or the grant-in-aid college is liable to pay retiral dues to a reinstated lecturer under the 1990 pension scheme for Gram Vidyapeeth staff.
- Whether the college's conduct in continuing to challenge the employee's reinstatement justified shifting the liability for retiral dues from the State to the college.
Provisions considered
- Paragraph 11, Pension Scheme for teaching/non-teaching staff in the Gram Vidyapeeth, Government of Gujarat (Resolution dated 13.07.1990)The paragraph provides for the Principal to prepare pension papers, the Director of Higher Education to sanction pension and gratuity, and payment from the Government Treasury. The Court held that it places the liability on the State and contains no exception allowing the State to deny payment and shift the burden to the institution. (¶¶ 8, 9, 13)
Held
- The appellant is undisputedly a grant-in-aid institution whose employees are entitled to pension under the State scheme. The scheme makes no exception that lets the State deny retiral benefits to such an employee in some circumstances and shift the burden to the institution. (¶ 13)
- The college's conduct in litigating after reinstatement was directed is not a ground for burdening it with the employee's retiral dues contrary to the scheme. Out of 30 charges against the employee, 10 were proved. The college challenged the appellate authority's view that dismissal was too harsh in order to maintain discipline, and no authority or court found its action to be without jurisdiction. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Educational Society, Tumsar v. State of Maharashtra was distinguished: there the institution's termination of its employee was found to be without jurisdiction, and no such finding existed here. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's order of 21.04.2023 allowing the State's review and dismissing the college's review set aside; the college's review allowed and the order of 26.07.2022 modified so that the State (respondent no. 1) is liable to pay the retiral dues of respondent no. 2.