SC Says that the Employers Cannot Haunt Retirees Without Statutory Authority and Powers
On 31.8.2008, the appellant had retired from the service of Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation.
After 11 months of retirement, he was served with a show cause notice for unresolved railway transportation losses during March 2006 to June 2008. Charge-sheet was served and punishment order for losses recovery of Rs.18,09,809/- was passed. As a result, the retiral benefits of Rs.4,43,013/- were withheld.
After analyzing Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations and Rule 27 of 1982 Pension Rules and also considering the averments made in additional affidavit filed as directed on 11.11.2025, the Corporation was unable to produce a conscious decision of the Board regarding adoption of Pension Rules and the circumstances explaining the situation to apply the same rules as applicable to the employees of the Government of Maharashtra to the employees of the Corporation in the matter of institution and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings post retirement. In light of the above discussions and in view of the judgments referred hereinabove, the irresistible conclusion can be drawn that the Corporation had no jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings against the appellant for the alleged misconduct and to direct recovery against him applying 1982 MCS Pension Rules. As such the questions as posed hereinabove are answered in favour of the appellant against the Corporation.
SC Bars Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action Without Statutory Backing
SC Says that the Employers Cannot Haunt Retirees Without Statutory Authority and Powers
SC Quashes Disciplinary Inquiry Against Retired Employee
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992,
Judgment dated 6.1.2026 of the Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No.10869 of 2021 of Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan Vs. The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation and others

