HARI NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ application, the Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents, more particularly to the respondent No. 5 to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner after observing the necessary formalities. The specific prayer made in this writ petition is for direction to the respondent No. 5 i. e. the Principal, Cotton College, Guwahati to forward the pension papers of the petitioner with necessary recommendation to the Accountant General of Assam, so that the petitioner who has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29. 02. 2000 gets his pensionary benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Laboratory Assistant in the Department of Chemistry, Cotton College way back in 1961 (02. 08. 1961 ). Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Head Assistant and he continued in the said post and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w. e. f. 29. 02. 2000. There was some dispute relating to the date of birth of the petitioner and his retirement from service on that basis. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing W. P. (C) No. 1515/2001 and the same was disposed of by order dated 09. 06. 2003. The claim for correction of recorded date of birth made by the petitioner was not accepted. As regards the period of overstay in service, it was provided in the order that the respondent No. 5 would not insist upon the refund of the amount drawn by the petitioner during the period. Thus the retirement of the petitioner w. e. f. 29. 02. 2000 was sustained. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that even after more than five (5) years of his such retirement, he has not been paid his pensionary and other retirement benefits. Hence this writ petition seeking appropriate direction.

(3.) THE respondent No. 5 has filed an affidavit purportedly on behalf of all the respondents. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit a statement has been made that the petitioner is liable to make refund of Rs. 3,83,940. 00. According to the respondents, the petitioner mis-appropriated this amount under various heads as indicated below:-<FRM>JUDGEMENT_903_GAULTSUPP_2005Html1.htm</FRM>