SURENDRA NATH DIHINGIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. D. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, who has now filed this review petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated 10.11.2005 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. By the said judgment and order, the decision of the Government to retire the petitioner from service with effect from February, 2003 on attaining the age of superannuation has been upheld. It has been held that the petitioner would be deemed to have retired from service with effect from February, 2003 on attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of the recorded date of birth in the service book and that his pension and other retirement benefits shall he calculated on that basis.

(2.) In the present review petition, the writ petitioner has contended that due to inadvertence, it could not be pointed out that the petitioner continued in his service beyond the age of superannuation by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that since he continued in his service upto 7th July, 2003, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, his pensionary and other retirement benefits need to be calculated on that basis. I am afraid, this contention of the petitioner is totally misconceived.

(3.) While entertaining the writ petition, by order dated 31.1.2003 an interim order was passed, by virtue of which the petitioner continued in his service beyond February, 2003, his actual date of superannuation. The interim order was vacated by order dated 26.3.2003 holding that if the petitioner is allowed to continue in service and eventually it is found that the petitioner is not entitled to continue beyond 28.2.2003, it will amount to fortuitous service.