SHIV RAM Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Deepak Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has at the outset made a request that the petitioner does not want to press relief clause (I) which is for quashing of the order dated 4.9.2004. He, however, prays that an observation be made to the effect that salary paid for the period worked may not be recovered. The dispute relates to the correct date of birth of the petitioner who retired as a peon. The petitioner's service-book, which was prepared in 1963 indicates that he was 25 years of age then, but the date of birth claimed is 1.9.1948. The authority came to the conclusion that taking the age of the petitioner as 25 years in 1963 the petitioner was born in 1938 and is, therefore, liable to retire at the age of 60 years in 1998.

(2.) Sri Jaiswal contends that treating the said order dated 4.9.2004 to be valid even otherwise the petitioner is entitled for certain benefits which have been withheld so far. He submits that the same may be directed to be released in case the same is admissible to the petitioner. Sri Jaiswal further invited the attention of the Court to paragraph No. 11 of the counter-affidavit, where it has been stated the pension papers, in accordance with order dated 4.9.2004, have already been forwarded to the Senior Treasury Officer, Etawah, on 31.3.2005 which is still awaiting finalization.

(3.) A supplementary-Affidavit has been filed copy whereof has been served on the learned Standing Counsel today stating therein that there is every likelihood of recovery of salary from the petitioner for the period between 30.6.1998 to 31.7.2004 and the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.