ARJUN MODI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, Petitioner has sought for direction to Respondents not to recover the alleged excess amount of salary paid to him and further for payment of his retiral dues.

(2.) Petitioner was initially appointed as unskilled labour in the office of the Respondent on 9.6.1968. Later he was upgraded in higher scale on 4.7.1977 and superannuated as Junior Lineman from Electric Supply Section, Bihar State Electricity Board, Banka on 31.1.2001. It is stated that the Petitioner was illiterate. It seems that initial date of birth was recorded as 5.3.1942 and later the same was corrected as 2.1.1941 on the basis of medical certificate by the competent authority and this led to creating doubt about his actual date of birth, whereupon he was referred to the Medical Board and the Medical Board ultimately found his age as 61 years on 12.3.2001, meaning thereby, according to the learned Counsel for the Board his date of retirement would be 31.3.2000. Thus, it is contended that the Petitioner worked for about nine months beyond his retirement and drew excess salary for the said period. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the , Board that it was on account of misrepresentation of the Petitioner that wrong entry of date of birth was made in the service book and, as such, there is nothing wrong in making recovery. However, he does not dispute that till date there has been no such enquiry made and finding recorded against the Petitioner..

(3.) I failed to appreciate as to how in the facts and circumstances aforementioned it can be said to be a case of misrepresentation. Thus, in view of the law settled by the Apex court in the case of Sahib Ram V/s. State of Haryana and Ors., 1995 Supp1 SCC 18 recovery of the alleged excess payment is not permissible.