SATRUGHAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notification dated 31-12-1994. contained in annexure-2 purported to have been issued with approval of the State Government extending the service of the respondent No. 4, who was to superannuate on 31-12-1994, by six months or until further order whichever is earlier. In this said order it is mentioned that in regard to the payment of salary to the said respondent No. 4, a separate decision shall be taken with the approval of the Finance Department.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that Rule-73 of the Bihar Service Code provides that the State Government be Public grounds to be recorded in writing, can retain a Government servant in service after attaining the age of 58 years on public grounds. Further, in this regard the State Government, vide Finance Department notification dated 1-4-1991 contained in annexure-5 issued a clarification that if necessary order to that effect is not issued after taking approval of the Council of Ministers through the Finance Department before the superannuation of government servant, than he shall unilaterally stead relieved from the service and if he still continues to work, then he shall himself be responsible and his continuance would be treated to be illegal for which he would not be entitled for any payment and also strict action would be taken against him for such continuance. In paragraph-18 of the writ petition it is stated that before issuance of the impugned notification, neither the. Finance Department has given its clearances, nor approval of the Cabinet (Council pf Ministers) has been taken.

(3.) On first occasion this writ application was heard on 9th March, 1995 when the notice was issued to the respondent No. 4 and on the prayer of learned GPI who appears on behalf of the respondent No 1 to 3, time was granted till 20th March, 1995 to take full instructions in the matter and file counter affidavit after serving a copy of the same upon the learned Counsel for the petitioner. By order dated 21-3-1995 the learned Counsel for the State was directed to take instructions in the matter and also to get the concerned file of extension of service of respondents No. 4. In the meantime, by an ad-interim order respondent No.4 was restrained from continuing in the office of the civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh, pursuant to the impugned notification contained in annexure-2.