Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 957 (MAD)

P. R. Sonai v. District Collector, Madurai

2006-04-04

P.JYOTHIMANI

body2006
Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed for certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1410/01/B2 dated 24.5.2005, to quash the same, and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the retirement benefits of the petitioner. 3. Thecase of the petitioner is that he was working as a Village Assistant and as per his normal day of retirement, he should retire on 31.3.1999. Further the petitioner was permitted to continue his service till 31.1.2001. From 31.3.1999 to 31.1.2001, he was already paid salary. In the impugned order passed by the third respondent, it is stated that since the petitioner has received the salary for 22 months unlawfully, the amount of Rs.55,151/- has to be recovered from him and in the event of the petitioner paying the said amount, steps will be taken for the purpose of payment of the retirement benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (2005) 6 SCC 49 , while dealing with the similar circumstances wherein a person was allowed to work for three months after the period of retirement and also paid salary, has held that direction to refund the amount is not equitable. Admittedly, the petitioner, therein served in the organisation even after the period of retirement. 5. TheSupreme Court while disposing of the said case has stated as follows: “Above being the position the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the date of birth of the respondent employee was 1.9.1939, contrary to what has been recorded in the service book. We find that the respondent employee had rendered service till the order dated 31.1.1991 was passed. It would not be equitable to direct refund of salary received by him up to 31.1.1991 beyond the actual day of superannuation i.e. 30.9.1990 to 31.1.1991 shall not be reckoned towards his retrial benefits.” 6. Even according to the principles of quantum meruit as enuniciated in the Contract Act, the petitioner is entitled for salary for the work rendered by him. Even according to the principles of quantum meruit as enuniciated in the Contract Act, the petitioner is entitled for salary for the work rendered by him. Admittedly, the petitioner has served for the period of 22 months and salary was also paid to him and as laid down by the Apex Court it is not equitable to recover the salary already paid to him. In any event, as decided by the Apex Court, the period of 22 months which is stated to be worked by the petitioner beyond the period of retirement cannot be considered for the benefits of the retirement. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is set aside, holding that the third respondent is not entitled for recovery of Rs.55,151/- (Rupees fifty five thousand one hundred and fifty one) form the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits. 7. It is made clear that for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, the work rendered by the petitioner for the period of 22 months shall not be taken into consideration. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. The third respondent is directed to take early steps for fixing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.