STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. DEVI DUTT AULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition seeks to challenge an order passed by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, Nainital Bench, Nainnital. Before the Tribunal, the respondent contended that he be directed to be paid remuneration for the period 01.01.2003 to 11.05.2004 by the State Government. The factual background culminating to filing of the claim before the Tribunal are not in dispute. The respondent exercised option to retire at the age of 58 years. There is no dispute that the respondent in terms of his such option was to retire on 31.12.2002. Respondent was a peon working at Pithoragarh District. The said district was bifurcated and the respondent was transferred to District-Champawat. According to the petitioners before us, at or about 31.12.2002 records pertaining to the respondent did not reach the newly created district Champawat and as a result the respondent was not given notice of superannuation as was required to be given to him. Respondent at the same time did not hold out to his Reporting Officer that on 31.12.2002 he would retire. It appears that the respondent attended his office on and after 01.01.2003 and continued to do so until 11.05.2004. When the respondent applied for settlement of his pensionary and other dues, it transpired to the petitioners that by mistake respondent has been permitted to work from 01.01.2003 to 11.05.2004. It also transpired that during the said period on account of remuneration, respondent has been paid a sum of Rs. 60,558/-. On receipt of the representation of the respondent for settlement of his pension and other terminal dues, while the petitioners stopped the respondent from discharging further duties of peon they demanded from the respondent deposit of a sum of Rs. 60,558/- as a condition for the settlement of pension and other dues of the respondent. The respondent deposited the sum of Rs. 60,558/- whereupon his pension and other dues were settled and paid to him. Subsequent thereto respondent approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction contending that he is entitled to remuneration for the services rendered by him from 01.01.2003 to 11.05.2004. This Court directed the District Basic Education Officer to deal with such claim of the respondent. The District Basic Education Officer concluded that he is not entitled to any remuneration for the said period inasmuch as services rendered during that period were beyond the period of superannuation of the respondent. Challenging the order of the District Basic Education Officer, respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the judgment and order impugned in the present writ petition held, as appears to us, that by reason of mutual mistake the respondent discharged duties of a peon from 01.01.2003 to 11.05.2004. It further held, as it appears to us, that during the said period the petitioners obtained the benefit of the services rendered by the respondent. It also found that there is provision in the law governing the services of the respondent that an employee, as that of the respondent, may be reemployed. It found that such re-employment could be made for the period in question. It also found that the government has devised how remuneration of such re-employed persons should be calculated and paid. The Tribunal ultimately disposed of the claim of the respondent by directing the petitioners to treat the respondent to have been re-employed for the period 01.01.2003 to 11.05.2004 and to settle and pay his remuneration for the said period in accordance with the Rules framed by the government.

(2.) In the writ petition, the contention of the petitioner is principally that it was well within the knowledge of the respondent that he would superannuate on 31.12.2002, and accordingly, would not be entitled to serve further from 01.01.2003. It is the contention of the petitioners that with such knowledge the respondent served, and accordingly, the respondent is not entitled to take benefit of such service. It has, however, not been contended that the respondent at any point of time made any untrue or unjust representation. It has also not been contended that the respondent held out anything before his employer which can be said to be unjust or improper. The fact, at the same time, remains that while the respondent was aware that he can work only upto 31.12.2002, so was the petitioners were aware. It is true that the respondent could not discharge duties with effect from 01.01.2003; similarly it is true that the petitioners could not also take services from the respondent from 01.01.2003. Due to mutual mistake on the part of the parties, while the respondent discharged duties with effect from 01.01.2003, the petitioners took the benefit of services rendered by the respondent since then and until such time the mutual mistake was discovered and steps were taken to rectify the same. In the meantime, the respondent, a peon having had rendered services was required to be remunerated. It being not in dispute that a person, as that of the respondent, could be re-employed, and that such re-employment could be for the period in question and the government having devised the manner of remunerating re-employed people, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the Tribunal impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) We accordingly dispose of the matter.