HARERAM MUKHIYA, SON OF LATE BIDESHWAR MUKHIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of Annexure- 7, dated 18.10.2016, petitioner was directed to deposit and refund a sum of Rs.7,39,000/-, by 27.10.2016. Petitioner wants quashing of this order as also yet another order, which has been passed subsequently on 27.10.2016, which is Annexure-8, annexed with I.A. No.9019 of 2016. The said I.A. is allowed. By virtue of Annexure-8, dated 27.10.2016, the earlier notification no.1967, dated 31.8.2014 and notification no.1966, dated 31.8.2015 has been modified or amended, which has the effect of restricting the period of extension of service of the petitioner from one year to three months.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioner was working as a Deputy Secretary in the Bihar Legislative Assembly. Due to paucity of hands, he was also made to officiate as a Joint Secretary and in absence of a Secretary in the Assembly, he was also made to officiate as the Secretary. Petitioner was to reach his age of superannuation on 31.8.2014. However, on a decision taken by the Speaker of the Assembly, on a proposal initiated, in which the petitioner had a role to play, as is the allegation made by the respondents, extension of service of one year was granted. The relevant notifications in this regard are Annexure-1, dated 27.8.2014, Annexure-2, dated 31.8.2014 as well as Annexure-4, dated 31.8.2015 by virtue of which the petitioner was directed to superannuate after completion of one year. All these notifications are governmental notifications issued by the Bihar Legislative Assembly and these notifications are in public domain. Petitioner has derived benefit of pay and privileges going with said office and after he superannuates, on the basis of a so-called audit objection raised by the Accountant General (Audit) for the State of Bihar, Annexure- 7 came to be issued followed by Annexure-8.

(3.) Post superannuation of the petitioner, a controversy was raised that in terms of Rule 73 and the different government clarifications issued from time to time, a government employee is not required to be given extension of service for a year. The maximum period for which his services can be extended should not exceed three months, therefore, the money or salary drawn by the petitioner for rest of the nine months was an illegal withdrawal from the public exchequer and the same should be recovered from the petitioner.