Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RADHA KISHUN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
28 February 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 582 · 1997 INSC 208
Also cited as
  • (1997) 9 SCC 239 (5 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This is an astonishing and more shocking case. The petitioner who was, admittedly, to retire on May 31, 1991 remained in office till May 31, 1994 as if he was not to retire from service, enjoying all the benefits of service.

p. 582, margin G

Th~~ . special leave petition arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, made on November 26, 1996 in OA No. 652/95. The petitioner had joined the service in Tele Communications Department. Admittedly, his date of birth is May 13, 1933. On attaining the age of superannuation, he was to retire on May 31, 1991. Instead,_ he remained in service till May 31, 1994. When action was taken to recover the amounts paid to him for the period beyond the date he was to retire; viz., May 31, 1991 and to which he was not entitled, he filed QA in the Tribunal and the same has been dismissed. Thus, this special leave petition.

pp. 582–583, margin H

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has worked during the period, he is entitled to the payment of the pay and allowances from 1.6.1991 to 26.6.1994 and that he is also entitled to the payment of Provisional Pension, Death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension amount, GPF money and the amou~t deposited under CGHS on the plea that he retired from service on May 31, 1994. We are aghast to notice the boldness with which it is claimed that he is entitled to all the benefits with effect from the abovesaid date when admittedly he was to retire on May 31, 1991. It would be an obvious case of absolute irresponsibility on the part of the officer concerned in the Establishment in the concerned section for not taking any action to have the petitioner retired from service on his attaining superannuation. It is true that the petitioner worked during that period, but when he is not to continue to be in service as per law, he has no right to claim the salary etc. It is not the case that he was re-employed in the public interest, after attaining superannuation. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the authorities in refusing to grant the benefits.

p. 583, margin B

It is then contended that the petitioner would have conveniently secured gainful employment elsewhere and having worked, he cannot be denied of the legitimate salary to which he is entitled to. Though the argument is alluring, we cannot accept the contention and give legitimacy to the illegal action taken by the authorities. If the contention is given acceptanc;e, it would be field day for manipulation with impugnity and one would get away on the plea of equity and misplaced sympathy. It cannot and should not be given countenance.

p. 583, margin F

Under those circumstances, we dismiss the petition with a direction to the Government of India to take appropriate disciplinary action against all the persons concerned for their deliberate dereliction of duty in not ensuring the petitioner's retirement on his attaining the age of superannuation.

pp. 583–584, margin G

The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Secretary, Telecommunications, Government of India. The Secretary is directed to ensure immediate action in the matter and submit the compliance report to the Registrar of this Court within three months ·from the date of the receipt of this order. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 584, margin A