DEBENDRA DEB BARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered into the service on 1.2.1980 as Cook-cum-Massaichi in Katlamara High School. The post was in the category of Group-D. According to the Rules prevailing in the State, the retirement age of Group-D employees is 60 years while those of Group-A, B and C is 58 years. The date of birth of the petitioner is 2.11.1944 and, therefore, his date of retirement was 30.11.2004 (as the last day of the month of birth is the date of retirement). On 9.6.2004 by a memorandum (Annexure-1), the Headmaster of the Katlamara High School, the third respondent herein, under whom he was working informed him that he would retire from service in the afternoon of 2.11.2004. On 2.11.2004, the Headmaster released him though as per Rule he was to retire on the last day of the month. However, to his surprise he received a memorandum dated 28.10.2004 (Annexure-3) from the Director of School Education, the second respondent herein, that due to revision of pay, the pay scale of the post of Cook-cum-Massalchi was revised to Rs. 3050-5190/- and as per provision of the said Revision of Pay Rules, 1999, the petitioner became a Group-C employee. Accordingly, he was to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 30.11.2002. Bui the petitioner rendered service beyond his date of retirement from 1.12.2002 to 30.9.2004 drawing pay and allowances for that: period. He was, therefore, directed to show cause as to why the entire amount drawn by him as pay and allowances for the said period should not be recovered from his pensionary benefit. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition putting under challenge the said memorandum.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State respondents.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner as canvassed in the writ petition is that he entered into the service as Cook-cum-Massalchi, which was a Group-D post. It was never communicated to him that after the revision of pay in the year 1999, the post was re-classified as Group-C because of his revised scale of pay. He retired from the service from the same post and, therefore, he had no reason to think that the post was ever upgraded. Even the third respondent, who is the Headmaster of the High School, informed him by memorandum at Annexure-1 that he was to retire from service after attaining the age of 60 years. Accordingly, he was released on 2.11.2004. This being the factual position, the petitioner cannot be held liable for serving extra period beyond 58 years of age. Another submission of the petitioner is that as per the Industrial Disputes Act, a workman like Cook-cum-Massalchi is to retire from service after at-taining the age of 60 years. Considering from this factual aspect the impugned order dated 28.10.2004 intending to recover the pay and allowances drawn by him for the period beyond 58 years of age is not legally sustainable.