RADHA KISHUN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an astonishing and more shocking case. The petitioner who was, admittedly, to retire on 31/5/1991 remained in office till 31/5/1994 as if he was not to retire from service, enjoying all the benefits of service.

(2.) This special leave petition arises from the order of the central administrative tribunal, Patna bench, made on 26/11/1996 in OA No. 652 of 1995. The petitioner had joined the service in Telecommunications department. Admittedly, his date of birth is 13/5/1933. On attaining the age of superannuation, he was to retire on 31/5/1991. Instead, he remained in service till 31/5/1994, When action was taken to recover the amounts paid to him for the period beyond the date he was to retire, viz. , 31/5/1991 and to which he was not entitled, he filed OA in the tribunal and the same has been dismissed. Thus, this special leave petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has worked during the period, he is entitled to the payment of the pay and allowances from 1/6/1991 to 26/6/1994 and that he is also entitled to the payment of provisional pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension amount, GPF money and the amount deposited under CGHS on the plea that he retired from service on 31/5/1994. We are aghast to notice the boldness with which it is claimed that he is entitled to all the benefits with effect from the abovesaid date when admittedly he was to retire on 31/5/1991. It would be an obvious case ofabsolute irresponsibility on the part of the officer concerned in the establishment in the section concerned for not taking any action to have the petitioner retired from service on his attaining superannuation. It is true that the petitioner worked during that period, but when he is not to continue to be in service as per law, he has no right to claim the salary etc. It is not the case that he was re-employed in the public interest, after attaining superannuation. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the authorities in refusing to grant the benefits.