MAHADEVAPPA Vs. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an employee of the respondent as a Gangman. The petitioner is retired from service. The respondent by an order dated 24-10-2002 informed the petitioner that he is deemed to have retired from service with effect from 31-8-1999. The petitioner shall be relieved from service forthwith on 24-10-2002. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had given wrong date of birth as 6-8-1949 instead of 6-8-1941. After an enquiry the respondent found that the correct date of birth is 6-8-1941 and the petitioner should retire on attaining superannuation with effect from 31-8-1999 but he illegally continued to be in-service till 24-10-2002. Therefore the respondent issued a notice at annexure-F, dated 12-11-2002 directing the petitioner to reimburse the 37 months salary in a sum of Rs. 2,59,248/- and other benefits obtained by him which is totally in a sum of Rs. 2,69,681/- failing which the respondent threatened to initiate necessary action for the recovery.

(2.) THE Counsel for the respondent relied on the ruling of the Supreme court in Radha Kishun v Union of India and Others, wherein it is held that deemed continuance in-service beyond the date of superannuation without being re-employed in public interest, does not entitle the employee to claim the salary. It is further held that the retirement benefits have to be worked out with effect from the date of actual superannuation and not the extended period of service and that the employee would not be entitled to salary for the period worked after his retirement.

(3.) IN the present case, the date of superannuation was itself in dispute under the consideration of the first respondent. In the cited case despite the categorical date of retirement on 31-5-1991, the employee was permitted to remain in office till 31-5-1994 and it was found to be a deliberate and a negligent act. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that the employee would not be entitled to salary for the period worked after his retirement whereas in the present case the date of retirement was a bona fide dispute. Only after the enquiry the correct date of birth has been ascertained and retrospectively the petitioner was made to retire. Therefore, the facts on hand could be distinguished from the facts stated in Radha Kishun's case. As such the ratio laid down therein would not be applicable to the facts on hand. In that view, it would not be proper to deny the wages for the period of work rendered by the petitioner. Accordingly, the notice issued at Annexure-F is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.