Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a former lecturer in Physical Education at B.P.C.A's College of Physical Education, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that he is entitled to provident fund, gratuity, and pension benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and the General Provident Fund Scheme. He also claimed arrears of salary for the period from 01/01/1996 till his removal from service. The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer on 12/06/1989, having previously worked as a lecturer since 1985. In 1995, he was accused of molesting a girl student, taken into custody on 18/02/1995, and released on bail the next day. He was placed under suspension on 22/02/1995. Subsequently, he was convicted by the criminal court and removed from service. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to pension and other benefits as per the rules. The respondents contended that the petitioner's removal was valid and that he was not entitled to any benefits as he did not render actual service after suspension. The court analyzed the facts and held that the petitioner's removal was for misconduct, and he did not work during the suspension period. Applying the principle of 'no work no pay', the court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to pension, gratuity, or arrears of salary. The court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged his removal order. The judgment was pronounced on 13/02/2019 by a division bench of the Bombay High Court.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Entitlement - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Petitioner, a lecturer, was removed from service after being convicted for molesting a student - Held that pension is not payable as the petitioner did not render actual service after suspension and was removed for misconduct (Paras 1-22). B) Service Law - Arrears of Salary - Suspension - Petitioner claimed arrears of salary for period from 01/01/1996 till removal - Held that no work no pay principle applies; petitioner was under suspension and did not work, hence not entitled to arrears (Paras 1-22). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Petitioner sought declaration of entitlement to pension and arrears - Held that writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner's removal was valid and he failed to establish any right to the claimed benefits (Paras 1-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to provident fund, gratuity, and pension benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and the General Provident Fund Scheme, and whether he is entitled to arrears of salary for the period from 01/01/1996 till his removal from service.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled to provident fund, gratuity, pension benefits, or arrears of salary.
Law Points
- Pension entitlement requires actual service
- removal for misconduct disentitles pension
- no arrears for period of suspension without work
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1982
- General Provident Fund Scheme
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
