Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 360 (UTT)

Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

2011-06-13

BARIN GHOSH, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2011
Judgment : BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) As it appears, right from 1st April, 1975, the State of Uttar Pradesh made it clear that a person attaining the age of superannuation on the first day of the month will be deemed to have retired on the last day of the previous month, but a person attaining the age of superannuation on any other day of a month will be retiring on the last day of that month. The State of Uttar Pradesh, at some point of time, also incorporated the same in its Financial Handbook. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 86 of the Uttar Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’), any law made by the State of Uttar Pradesh will apply with equal force in the new State of Uttarakhand. Section 87 of the said Act authorized the State of Uttarakhand to adopt, with such modifications as it may deem fit and proper, any law thus made by the State of Uttarakhand. In exercise of such power granted to the State of Uttarakhand by Section 87 of the said Act, the State of Uttarakhand adopted the Financial Handbook of the State of Uttar Pradesh with the modification of clause 56 (Ka) thereof. In the modification, it has been provided that a Government employee attaining the age of superannuation will retire on the last date of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation. That being the situation, in the State of Uttarakhand, a person attaining the age of superannuation on the first day of a month will also retire on the last date of the said month along with all other persons who have attained the age of superannuation on any other date of the selfsame month. 2. In the instant case, petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 1st June, 2008. Respondents/State thought that in such circumstances, petitioner should retire on 31st May, 2008 and not on 30th June, 2008. Inasmuch as, petitioner was permitted to work till 30th June, 2008, steps have been taken by the respondents/State for recovery of one month’s salary from the petitioner. That has resulted in filing of the writ petition. 3. Respondents/State thought that in such circumstances, petitioner should retire on 31st May, 2008 and not on 30th June, 2008. Inasmuch as, petitioner was permitted to work till 30th June, 2008, steps have been taken by the respondents/State for recovery of one month’s salary from the petitioner. That has resulted in filing of the writ petition. 3. Inasmuch as, in terms of the law made by the State of Uttarakhand, petitioner is entitled to work till 30th June, 2008, despite having had reached his age of superannuation on 1st June, 2008, and the petitioner having had worked till 30th June, 2008, the actions on the part of the State, complained of in the writ petition, are interferable. We, accordingly, declare that the petitioner has rightly worked till 30th June, 2008 and should be deemed to have superannuated on the forenoon of 30th June, 2008, despite he having had attained the age of superannuation on 1st June, 2008, in terms of the law, thus, made by the State of Uttarakhand. Any step taken by the State of Uttarakhand for recovery of any money from the petitioner is, thus, unwarranted and, accordingly, quashed. Let the retiral and other terminal dues of the petitioner be settled and paid as quickly as possible, if not already settled and paid. 4. The writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed.