Court rules in favor of petitioner on salary & pension. Upholds retirement, directs full pay restoration.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding payment of salary during the suspension period and reduction in pension. The petitioner was entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period as he was honourably acquitted, and the reduction in pension without proper reasoning was deemed arbitrary. However, the court upheld the compulsory retirement due to lack of specific pleadings and delay in challenging the order. The Bombay Port Trust was directed to pay full salary and allowances for the suspension period, restore the full pension, and comply with the court's directions within ten weeks, including paying the costs of the petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Payment of salary during the suspension period.
2. Compulsory retirement.
3. Reduction in pension.

Detailed Analysis:

Payment of Salary During the Suspension Period:
The petitioner, an ex-employee of the Bombay Port Trust (B.P.T.), was suspended following an arrest for theft in 1970. After being acquitted by the High Court in February 1973, the petitioner resumed duties but was later denied full salary for the suspension period. The relevant rules, particularly Rule 42 of the Digest of Pay and Allowances, Leave and Pension Rules, stipulate that if an employee is "honourably acquitted," they are entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period. The court emphasized that the petitioner was honourably acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove the charges, which should entitle him to full salary during suspension. The court found no application of mind by the B.P.T. in denying full salary and ruled that the petitioner was entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension.

Compulsory Retirement:
The petitioner was compulsorily retired under Rule 44(b) of the Pay and Allowances, Leave and Pension Rules, effective February 1, 1976. The petitioner challenged this retirement, arguing it was unjustified and lacked proper material or reasoning. The court noted that there was a lack of specific pleadings to support the petitioner's contention against compulsory retirement and found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient grounds to challenge the order. Additionally, the court acknowledged the delay in challenging the retirement order, which could adversely affect the B.P.T. Thus, the court did not set aside the compulsory retirement order.

Reduction in Pension:
The petitioner's pension was reduced by Rs. 15 without any specific order or reason provided. Rule 28 of the Pension Rules, 1973, allows for the reduction of pension if the service is not thoroughly satisfactory, but it requires a speaking order showing application of mind. The court found that no such order or reasoning was provided in this case, and the reduction was arbitrary. Moreover, the petitioner could not appeal the reduction due to the lack of an appellate authority. Consequently, the court set aside the order reducing the pension by 5%, directing the respondents to pass necessary orders in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner on the issues of salary during the suspension period and reduction in pension, directing the B.P.T. to pay full salary and allowances for the suspension period and to restore the full pension. However, the court upheld the compulsory retirement due to lack of specific pleadings and delay in challenging the order. The respondents were ordered to comply with the court's directions within ten weeks and pay the costs of the petition.

---