MANOHARI DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution on India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of Writ/Writs commanding the respondent authorities not to deduct the amount of Rs. 2,60,393/- (Rupees two lakhs, sixty thousand, three hundred and ninety three only) from his pensionary benefits, which was drawn by the petitioner as salary for a period of 30 months, i.e. from 1.1.2000 to 30.6.2002 and pay pensionary benefits to the petitioner to which he is entitled to. The pensioner has also prayed for quashing the letter dated 29.6.2004 issued by Respondent No. 3 and consequent thereto for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize the service period of the petitioner from 1.1.2000 to 30.6.2002, purportedly to be overstay period beyond his date of superannuation.

(2.) The petitioner's case in a narrow compass, is that, he was appointed on 23.7.1964 as a Work-charged Roller Driver under the Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD Rangia (NH) Sub-Division vide letter No. 2A70-84 dated 20.7.1964. His service as Roller driver was confirmed vide Government. Circular No. APB/95.77/49 dated 6.3.1978 and since then he has been continuing in the said post as a regular employee. At the time of entry to the post, the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 24.6.1944, based on his school leaving certificate dated 1.7.1965. The petitioner accordingly went on superannuation on 30.6.2002 on reaching the age of superannuation at 58 years of age. The petitioner accordingly submitted his pension papers to the respondent No. 3, i.e. The Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Barpeta Division, Barpeta, who after doing the needful prepared the pension papers on the basis of the service book of the petitioner and submitted it to the Accountant General, Assam vide letter No. 6166 dated 1.11.2002 for sanction of pension. The respondent No. 4, i.e. The Accountant General, Assam in receipt of the same vide letter No. Pen-6/K-23091/PR/G/PWD/232/02/358 dated 5.5.2003 addressed to the respondent No. 3 informed that as recorded in page 1 of the service roll of the petitioner his date of birth is recorded as 1.4.1942 and accordingly he ought to have retired on superannuation on 31.12.1999. However by the aforesaid letter it was also informed that the date of birth, as recorded as 26.4.1944 at page-1 of the service book and an attested copy of school certificate attached in its support, allowed him to retire on superannuation on 30.06.2002. By the said letter respondent No. 4 further requested the respondent No. 3 to amend the petitioner's date of superannuation as 31.12.1999 in his service book and pension papers and to assess the over drawn pay and allowances and leave salary encasement and to intimate the same to his office for recovery from his pensionary benefits. Otherwise, respondent No. 3 was given the option to move the Finance Department for sanction of the overstayed period from 1.1.2000 to 30.6.2002 as re-employment. On receipt of the said letter dated 5.5.2003 respondent No. 3 sent a letter to the respondent No. 2. i.e. Chief Engineer (Roads) PWD, Assam on 28.1.2004 informing about the contents of the letter dated 5.5.2003 and requested him to take up the matter with the competent authority for sanctioning the over stayed period from 1.1.2000 to 30.6.2002 by the petitioner in service as re-employment. However, respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 23.12.2004 made it clear that as per office memorandum dated 1.2.1992 of Personnel 'A' Department, if any officer found overstayed in service beyond the date of superannuation, no proposal for regularisation of overstayed period shall be entertained and the amount drawn during the said overstayed period shall be recovered from the DCRG of the said officer. However, before issuing the letter dated 23.12.2004, when the matter of regularization of the period of over stay beyond the date of superannuation of service of the 'petitioner was pending before the higher authority, the respondent No. 3 of his own, requested the respondent No. 4 to deduct an amount of Rs. 2,60,393/- drawn by the petitioner as salary for a period of 30 months, i.e. the alleged overstayed period from 1.1.2000 to 30.6.2002, from pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the authority, left with no alternative, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking relief/reliefs as hereinabove indicated.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, PWD appearing for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. None appeared for respondent No. 4. I have carefully perused the materials on record.