In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has said that a pending criminal case, which has nothing to do with the employment of a person, cannot be used by his or her employer to withhold any post-retirement benefits. The HC accordingly ordered the Municipal Council of Wai in Satara district to release all the pending dues of a teacher, who is facing prosecution in a domestic violence case.
A bench of Justices Ramesh Dhanuka and Abhay Ahuja was hearing a petition filed by one Sheetal Bargaje, 58, who worked as a teacher in the municipal school at Wai, Satara.
Bargaje, was booked in a domestic violence case after her daughter-in-law lodged a police complaint against her. She was booked under charges of domestic violence, dowry demand and forcibly causing miscarriage of her daughter-in-law.
On this ground, the school had suspended her in 2016, which was merely some months before her retirement in 2017. The school at the time of retirement paid partial amounts of her post retirement benefits but withheld most of it.
Challenging this action, Bargaje had petitioned the bench of Justice Dhanuka seeking her benefits. She argued that the prosecution and the criminal case were pertaining to her personal discord with the daughter-in-law and that she had already filed appropriate proceedings to quash the FIR and the case against her.
Before the bench, she highlighted the fact that the courts have already granted her interim protection from arrest in the case.
The municipal council, however, contended that since she was booked in a criminal case, it was appropriate on it's part to withhold the amounts.
Noting the submissions, the judges said that the criminal prosecution, in which Bargaje was named had nothing to do with her employment and that she wasn't facing any departmental enquiry in the said case or any other case.
"In our view, the criminal proceedings filed at the instance of Bargaje's daughter-in-law under Indian Penal Code other related provisions, havenothing to do with her employment. If any criminal proceedings would have been filed and pending investigation relating to her employment the situation would have been different," the bench held.
As far as payments of the benefits are concerned, the judges said, "The authorities are liable to pay the balance amount due to Bargaje, on the premise that she continued to be in service till the date of her superannuation all through out on the ground that there being no departmental enquiry having been initiated against her."
"And till date there being no conviction in the criminal proceedings which may not even otherwise be relevant for the purpose of her employment," the bench added, while ordering the authorities to pay the amounts within six weeks.
