LAKHIMAI BHAGAWATI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.B. Gohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.P. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department and Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents.

(2.) The matter pertains to non-finalization of pensionary and other retiral benefits in respect of petitioner s husband, namely, late Jadav Ch. Sarma, who was serving as a Headmaster of Dhenukhana M.V. School in the district of Lakhimpur. According to the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2013 and soon thereafter he died on 8.2.2013. However, the pensionary and other retiral benefits have not been granted to the petitioner s husband and before the same could be granted, he died, as mentioned above. After the death of the petitioner s husband, the petitioner has not got the pensionary/retiral benefits, except the gratuity. The apparent reason for non-finalization of the pension and retiral benefits of the petitioner s husband is that, as per records, the petitioner ought to have retired from service on 30.4.2009 on attaining 60 years of age, as his date of birth as per HSLC certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, should be 1.5.1949. However, the same was wrongly recorded in the service book as 1.1.1953. Because of this, the petitioner s husband continued to be in service till 31.1.2013. Accordingly, because of the aforesaid overstay in service, the authorities had to recover the excess payment made in favour of the petitioner s husband, which occasioned the delay in finalization of the pensionary and other retiral benefits.

(3.) As mentioned above, the petitioner s husband was allowed to work till 31.1.2013 by the authorities and it was not on the basis of self assumption of service. The authorities could not detect earlier that he was due to retire on 30.4.2009 and the petitioner continued to serve till 31.1.2013 because of wrong recording of the date of birth in the service book as 1.1.1953. In the present case, before the authorities could detect the same, the petitioner s husband had already retired from service on 31.1.2013 and thereafter he expired on 8.2.2013. The authorities are now seeking to recover the excess payment that has been made vide order dated 29.5.2018.