Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 527 (JHR)

Rashid Ahmad v. State of Bihar

2002-04-26

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
Order Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order dated 17.8.99 as contained in annexure 6 to the writ application whereby the petitioner was informed that he has already superannuated with effect from 31.1.98 and further for quashing the order dated 24.12.99 by which the respondents have decided to deduct a sum of Rs. 1,18,018/- being salary of the petitioner after superannuation from the amount of gratuity and group insurance. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant teacher in 1960. The date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the matriculation certificate was 3.1.1938, However, service book of the petitioner was opened in 1962 wherein the date of birth was recorded as 3.1.1943. The petitioner continued in service and he was promoted to the post of Headmaster. As per the matriculation certificate the petitioner had to superannuate with effect from 31.1.98 but even thereafter the petitioner continued in service till August, 1999 when the impugned order was issued by the respondents informing the petitioner that he was already superannuated with effect from 31.1.98. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the petitioner who was a teacher in Govt. Middle School, Giridih changed his date of birth from 3.1.1938 to 3.1.1943. It is contended that the petitioner was bound to retire in 1998 on the basis of his date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificates. However, when the relevant records i.e. the matriculation certificate and the service book of the petitioner was checked and verified, it was detected that the petitioner was continuing in service even after attaining the age of 60 years. The petitioner was immediately directed to file documents which the petitioner did not do and consequently the impugned letter was issued and also a decision was taken to deduct the aforesaid amount being the salary of the petitioner which was paid to him from February, 1998 to November, 1998. 5. Mr. The petitioner was immediately directed to file documents which the petitioner did not do and consequently the impugned letter was issued and also a decision was taken to deduct the aforesaid amount being the salary of the petitioner which was paid to him from February, 1998 to November, 1998. 5. Mr. Ughal, learned counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submission, firstly that the respondents are not entitled to deduct the salary which was paid to the petitioner for the period February, 1998 to November, 1998 for the reason that admittedly the petitioner worked as a teacher in the said school and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get salary for the said period. 6. Learned counsel has not disputed the genuineness of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate and, therefore, admittedly the petitioner completed his 60 years of age in January, 1998 and he was to retire on 31.1.98. However, taking advantage of the date of birth entered in the service book and the GPF account and other records as 3.1.1943 the petitioner continued in service even after January, 1998 any the respondents did not raise any objection against the continuance of the petitioner in service. It is because of the laches and negligence of the respondents, the petitioner continued in service even after attaining 60 years of age and he was paid salary after that from February 1998 to November, 1998. In my opinion, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to recover the amount of salary already paid to the petitioner upto November, 1998. 7. So far the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary from December, 1998 to August, 1999 is concerned, as noticed above, admittedly the petitioner's date of birth was 3.1.1938 and after completing 60 years of age on 31.1.98, the petitioner did not voluntarily retire from service which he was supposed to do for the reasons that he was holding a very pious post of Headmaster. Taking undue advantage of the laches and negligence of the respondents the petitioner, without disclosing the fact that he was to superannuate on 31.1.98, continuously worked upto August, 1999 which he was not supposed to do. Taking undue advantage of the laches and negligence of the respondents the petitioner, without disclosing the fact that he was to superannuate on 31.1.98, continuously worked upto August, 1999 which he was not supposed to do. In my opinion, therefore, the petitioner cannot be given premium by making payment of salary for the period December, 1998 to August, 1999 for the concealment of fact that he attained the age of 60 years in 1998 and merely for the reason that he worked upto August, 1999. Equity equally demands that this court should not give the benefits to such a person who was holding the post of a teacher. In my opinion, therefore, the amount which has been paid to the petitioner by way of salary even after retirement, should not be recovered from him but at the same time, whatever amount of salary which has not been paid to the petitioner for the period he worked should not be paid to him. 8. For all these reasons this writ application is allowed in part and the impugned order for recovery of salary which was paid to the petitioner upto November, 1998 is quashed. It is, however, held that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get any further amount of salary for the period he worked after November, 1998.