Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Khairunnissa Rasool Golandaj, is the widow of Late Rasool Gulam Mohammed Golandaj, who was an employee of the Employees State Insurance Scheme of the Government of Maharashtra. The deceased employee joined government service in 1957 as a Junior Clerk and was promoted to Senior Clerk in 1963. In 1964, he was transferred to Solapur as Head Clerk. On 4 August 1965, he went on leave without prior sanction due to domestic reasons. During his absence, the Medical Officer In-charge lodged a false police complaint alleging that the employee had absconded with Rs.10,064.50. When the employee reported back on 7 September 1965, the cash was found intact. Despite this, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and he was suspended from 27 October 1965 to 21 December 1967. The employee was ultimately exonerated in 1970, but the respondents did not treat the suspension period as duty. The employee filed Original Application No. 306 of 2003 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which directed the respondents to determine the proportion of pay and allowances for the suspension period under Rule 72(5) of the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981. The respondents, however, by a communication dated 1 March 2007, denied regular pay and allowances, stating that subsistence allowance already paid was proper. The petitioner amended the writ petition to challenge this decision. The court held that the suspension period should be treated as duty for all purposes, and the deceased employee is entitled to full pay and allowances for that period. The court also held that the petitioner is entitled to family pension from the date of the employee's death. The court quashed the communication dated 1 March 2007 and directed the respondents to pay the arrears of pay and allowances and family pension with interest at 6% per annum within three months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Family Pension - Entitlement - The widow of a deceased government employee is entitled to family pension when the employee would have been entitled to pension but for his death during litigation - The court held that the deceased employee's suspension period should be treated as duty for pension purposes, and the widow is entitled to family pension from the date of death (Paras 1-29). B) Service Law - Suspension - Pay and Allowances - Rule 72(5) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payment during suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981 - The court held that the suspension period from 27.10.1965 to 21.12.1967 should be treated as duty for all purposes, and the deceased employee is entitled to full pay and allowances for that period, not merely subsistence allowance - The respondents' decision to deny regular pay was arbitrary and illegal (Paras 10-28). C) Service Law - Fundamental Rules 54-B - Applicability - The court held that Fundamental Rule 54-B, which provides for payment of full pay and allowances when suspension is held to be wholly unjustified, applies to the deceased employee's case - The respondents' failure to apply this rule resulted in injustice (Paras 15-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension and regular pay and allowances for the suspension period of the deceased employee, and whether the respondents' decision denying such benefits is arbitrary and illegal.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the communication dated 1.3.2007, and directed the respondents to treat the suspension period from 27.10.1965 to 21.12.1967 as duty for all purposes, pay full pay and allowances for that period, and pay family pension to the petitioner from the date of death of the employee with interest at 6% per annum within three months.
Law Points
- Family pension eligibility
- Suspension period pay
- Rule 72(5) of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules
- 1981
- Fundamental Rules 54-B
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
