Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000053-000053 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 15562/2021 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for PSUs and similar statutory bodies |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents on post-retirement disciplinary jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Service Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether in absence of a specific provision in service regulations, a corporation can institute and continue departmental proceedings against a retired employee by invoking Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules without express adoption or sanction? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court held that Rule 110 of the 1992 Regulations is a residuary provision that does not ipso facto import the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. A PSU must take a conscious board decision to adopt those Rules. Further, Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of the Pension Rules requires mandatory prior sanction from the Government for post-retirement proceedings. Absent both a specific adoption order and case-by-case sanction, departmental enquiries and withholding of retiral benefits against a superannuated employee are unauthorized and void. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant retired on 31.08.2008. About eleven months later, the Corporation served show-cause notices alleging storage and railway transit losses and initiated enquiry. Relying on Rule 110 of its 1992 Regulations and Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules, it held the appellant responsible, withheld gratuity and directed recovery. No specific provision in the 1992 Regulations or prior Government sanction was obtained. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Rule 110 of PSUs’ service regulations is a residuary reference clause; it does not automatically import Government service rules unless expressly adopted by the governing body.
- Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, mandates prior Government sanction for departmental proceedings instituted post-retirement.
- Absence of a board resolution or circular adopting the Pension Rules and failure to obtain case-specific sanction render post-retirement enquiries and recoveries void.
- PSUs must ensure clear resolutions and Government approvals before invoking state Pension Rules for disciplinary action against retired employees.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Interpretation of Rule 110 (1992 Regulations)
Treated as a miscellaneous/residuary clause permitting—but not mandating—adoption of Government rules where the Regulations are silent. - Analysis of Rule 27 (1982 Pension Rules)
Confers power to withhold/withdraw pension and recover losses only if proceedings were instituted in service or, if post-retirement, with prior Government sanction and within four years of the cause of action. - Absence of Conscious Adoption
No Board of Directors’ resolution or order was produced showing express adoption of the Pension Rules for the Corporation’s employees. - Mandatory Sanction Requirement
The word “shall” in Rule 27(2)(b)(i) imposes a mandatory requirement of Government sanction for each post-retirement enquiry. - Reliance on Precedents
Followed Girijan Cooperative, Bhagirathi Jena, and Anant R. Kulkarni to hold that post-retirement enquiries without specific adoption and sanction are unauthorized. - Conclusion
Corporation lacked jurisdiction; proceedings and recovery orders quashed; full retiral benefits to be released.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- No provision in the 1992 Regulations for post-retirement departmental proceedings.
- Rule 110 is merely residuary and does not confer automatic applicability of Pension Rules.
- Rule 27(2)(b) requires prior Government sanction, which was not obtained.
Respondent (Corporation)
- Rule 110 permits the Corporation to regulate unprovided matters “in the same manner” as Government employees.
- State Government’s approval of the 1992 Regulations (31.03.1990) amounts to general sanction for applying Rule 27.
- Historical practice and the appellant’s acceptance of refunded benefits estop him from objecting.
Factual Background
The appellant joined the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation in 1969 and retired as Storage Superintendent on 31 August 2008. After eleven months, he received a show-cause notice alleging storage and railway transit losses incurred during his tenure as Centre Head. The Corporation invoked Rule 110 of its 1992 Regulations and Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules to conduct a departmental enquiry post-retirement, held him responsible for losses, withheld gratuity and directed recovery. The appellant challenged the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction and mandatory sanction.
Statutory Analysis
- Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992, Rule 110
A residuary provision: “All matters for which specific provisions have not been made … shall … be regulated in the same manner as in the case of employees of the Government of Maharashtra,” but only “as may be considered appropriate by the Corporation.” - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, Rule 27
Empowers Government to withhold/withdraw pensions or recover losses if a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct; sub-rule (2)(b)(i) mandates prior Government sanction for proceedings instituted post-retirement; four-year limitation on cause of action; provisional pension provisioning under sub-rule (4).
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed (confirms need for specific adoption and sanction in post-retirement disciplinary proceedings)