GAMBHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Heard Dr. Dharmesh Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that his date of birth was admitted by the respondents as 15-12- 1942 yet illegally he was earlier retired on 30-4-1999 and thereafter accepting error in retiring him premature, he was treated in service and paid arrears only up to 30-6-2000 though he was entitled for payment of salary till 31-12-2000. He further contended that he is working in the work charge establishment since 1984 and was regularized in the year 1996, therefore is entitled for retiral benefits having worked for more than 10 years and reliance is placed on a Single Judge judgment of this Court in Ram Pratap Shukla v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 2006 (2) LBESR 492 (All) : 2006 (4) ADJ 709.

(3.) IT is not the case of the respondents that the aforesaid letter is forged or fictitious or has not been issued by the office of the Engineer-in-Chief. That being so, in my view, it was not open to an authority subordinate to the Engineer in Chief to take a different view and not to make payment of salary to the petitioner treating him as retired on 31-12-2000. Regulation 14 of CSR and the Government Order dated 20-8-1971 therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case have no application at all and the Executive Engineer has clearly erred in law by purporting to exercise his powers thereunder. The date of birth of the petitioner was correctly known to the authorities and on the inquiry made by them it was found 15-12-1942 and therefore the said provisions have no application.