IN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

MUMBAI

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.107 OF 2022

DISTRICT: PUNE
SUB : RETIRAL BENEFITS/PAYMENT ON INTEREST

Rukhsana Yusuf Patel )

Age : 64 years, Occ : Housewife. )
R/o. A-502, Sanjuda Complex, Bhekrai Nagar, Papde )
Vasti, Fursungi, Dist. Pune. )… Applicant
Versus

1) The State of Maharashtra, )

Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, )
Mumbai-400 032. )
2) Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, )
Mumbai. )

3) The Collector, Collector Compound, 1st floor, )

Main Building, Siddeshwar Peth, )
Solapur 413 001. )

4) The Tahsildar, 17, Alipur Road, Jijau Nagar, )

Krantisingh Nagar, Barshi, Solapur 413401. )….Respondents

Mrs. Snehal Vaidya, learned Advocate for the Applicant.

Smt. Archana B. K., learned Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

CORAM : A.P. Kurhekar, Member (J)

DATE : 22.08.2022

ORDER

1. Heard Mrs. Snehal Vaidya, learned Counsel for the Applicant and

Smt. Archana B. K., learned Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. The Applicant who is widow of deceased Government servant

namely Yusuf Patel has filed this O.A. challenging the order dated

03.06.2021 passed by the Respondent No.3 – Collector, Solapur thereby

 2 O.A.107 of 2022

treating the period of suspension from 27.12.1990 to 19.01.1999 as a

period of suspension but to consider it only for pension purposes.

3. The Applicant’s husband was Godown Keeper on the

establishment of Respondent No.3. He came to be suspended by order

dated 27.12.1990 in view of registration of crime and in contemplation of

D.E. He was under suspension for about nine years. It is only by order

dated 19.01.1999 the Collector Solapur reinstated him in service. Insofar

as Criminal Case and D.E. is concerned, it was pending. The Applicant’s

husband later retired on attaining the age of superannuation on

31.01.2007. However, D.E. and criminal prosecution were continued.

Later he died on 04.09.2020 before final order in D.E. Insofar as

criminal case is concerned in view of death, it stood abated.

4. In D.E. though Enquiry Officer has submitted positive report, no

final order was passed. In view of death of Applicant’s husband, D.E.

initiated by charge sheet dated 16.12.1993 came to be closed in terms of

Rule 13(4) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,

1979 which inter-alia provides that disciplinary proceeding shall come to

an end immediately on the death of delinquent servant and no

disciplinary proceedings under these rules, can thereafter be continued

after the death of concerned Government servant.

5. It is on the above background, the Respondent No.3 passed the

order on 03.06.2021 stating that period of suspension from 27.12.1990

to 19.01.1999 shall be considered only for pension purposes and for

other purposes it should be treated as ‘suspension as such’. This order

 3 O.A.107 of 2022

seems to have been passed referring Rule 72(7) of Maharashtra Civil

Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments during

Suspension, Dismissal & Removal) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to

as ‘Rules 1981’ for brevity). Being aggrieved by it, the Applicant has filed

the present O.A.

6. This O.A. was filed on 01.02.2022 and notices were issued by

order dated 02.03.2022. Thereafter enough time was given to learned

P.O. to file reply but the same is not filed. Ultimately, O.A. was

proceeded for hearing at the stage of admission without reply. This is

how the Tribunal is required to decide the O.A. on its own merit.

7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that impugned order is

ex-facie bad in law and the suspension period ought to have been treated

as duty period for all purposes as specifically provided under Rule 72(2)

of ‘Rules 1981’. She has pointed out that admittedly D.E. was closed in

view of death of delinquent before passing final order therein and

criminal prosecution also stands abated. She therefore, submits that

impugned order is totally bad in law.

8. Learned P.O. submits that she has not received any information

and unable to said anything. She submits that O.A. be decided on its

own merit.

9. Indeed, Rule 72(2) of Rules 1981 specifically takes care of such

situation where Government servant dies before conclusion of

disciplinary proceeding or court proceeding. At this juncture, it would

 4 O.A.107 of 2022

be apposite to reproduce Rule 72(2) of ‘Rules 1981’ for ready reference

which is as under

“Rule 72(2) : Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 68, where

a Government servant under suspension dies before the
disciplinary or Court proceedings instituted against him
are concluded, the period between the date of
suspension and the date of death shall be treated as
duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the
full pay and allowances for that period to which he
would have been entitled, had he not been suspended,
subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence
allowance already paid.”

10. It is thus explicit from Rule 72(2) that where Government servant

dies before conclusion of disciplinary proceeding, the period of

suspension is required to be treated as duty period for all purposes and

necessary consequential service benefits required to be paid to his heirs.

unfortunately, the Respondent No.3 completely ignored the Rule 72(2) of

‘Rules 1981’ and passed the order of treating the period of suspension as

‘suspension as such’ which is directly in conflict with the Rules and

totally unsustainable in law. In other words, there is no application of

mind and law which has caused serious prejudice to the Applicant.

11. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to conclude that

impugned order dated 03.06.2021 is totally bad in law and liable to be

quashed. Hence, the order :-

ORDER

(A) Original Application is allowed.

(B) Impugned order dated 03.06.2020 passed by the Respondent No.3

is quashed and set aside. It be treated as duty period for all

purposes.
 5 O.A.107 of 2022

(C) The Respondent No.3 is directed to disburse the retiral benefits

which remains unpaid including family pension to the wife of the

deceased Government servant within six weeks from today.

(D) No order as to costs.

Sd/-
(A.P. Kurhekar)
Member (J)

Place: Mumbai
Date: 22.08.2022
Dictation taken by: Vaishali S. Mane
D:\VSM\VSO\2022\Order & Judgments\Retiral benefits - Annual increment\O.A.107 of 22 Pensionary benefits.doc