RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER has preferred this writ application for a direction to the respondents to pay all his post retiral benefits. The only dispute which requires decision of this court is whether the decision of the respondents as evidenced by paragraph -19 of the counter affidavit of respondent nos, 2, 4 and 8 and annexure -P to their supplementary counter affidavit to deduct the salary paid to the petitioner since April, 1994 to June 96 is correct or not.

(3.) THE law relating to aforesaid controvery is settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishna V/s. Union of India, reported in Maharani Fuels (P) Ltd. Versus State Of Bihar 1997 (2) PLJR (S.C.) 129. According to the said decision the plea on behalf of such an employee that he should not be denied the legitimate salary for period during which he had actuafly remained in service should not be accepted as acceptance of such plea will encourage manipulation with impunity. In that case the Supreme Court also directed the Central Government to take appropriate disciplinary action against the persons responsible for not ensuring the retirement of the concerned employees on his attaining age of superannuation.