KAUSHALYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions since the question involved is common, they have been heard and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) FIRST four writ petitions have been filed by the employees of the Patna Municipal Corporation, who are aggrieved by the orders contained in Annexures 2 & 3 respectively. By Annexure -2 in C.W. J.C. No. 8527 of 1999 the Administrator of the Corporation directed the office to place the claim of the post -retirement benefit of the employee only after completing the necessary formalities mentioned therein. According to the said direction the claim of the employee was to be put up after making necessary adjustment of the alleged excess amount drawn during the services rendered by them beyond the actual date of superannuation, and by Annexure -3 of C.W.J.C. No. 9732 of 1998 the claim of the petitioner has been decided after making adjustment of the alleged excess amount drawn by him during the period after his actual date of superannuation. In C.W.J.C. Nos. 11677 of 1998 and 11739 of 1998 by the order, contained in Annexure -1, which have been issued on 16.3.98 and 24th February, 1996 respectively by the Deputy Administrator of the Corporation pursuant to which on completion of 40 years of their service on 14.5.1995 and 1994 the petitioners have been sought to be superannuated with immediate effect. They are aggrieved by non -payment of their post -retiral dues, despite filing representations by them. Learned counsel for the petitioners apprehends that payment of the petitioners have been kept withheld for making recovery of the alleged excess amount drawn by them during the period the date and/or the year determined as their retiral age and till when the work was taken from them.

(3.) 4.1956 and his date of birth in the service book was recorded as 4.5.1943. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, it is alleged that the said recording of date of birth at the time of opening of the service book was by mistake/slip of pen. It is further alleged that soonafter the said mistake was detected the husband of the petitioner was asked to produce the document in support of date of birth and when he did not produce it, Medical Board was constituted which after conducting radiological/ossification test found the age of petitioner 60 to 62 years on the date of examination i.e. 8.5.1997. It is stated that the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner comes to 4.5.1935 and thus he was made to retire with effect from 31.3.1995 to which he never raised any objection. 4. It is thus, alleged that the husband of the petitioner continued in service beyond the actual date of retirement during period 31.5.1995 to 23.5.1997 and withdrew Board 'smoney for the period by way of salary and ailowance which are liable to be adjusted against the different retiral benefits of the deceased employee. In paragraph 13 it is stated that the other retiral benefits of the late husband of the petitioner shall be released on or after the adjustment of the excess amount drawn by the husband of the petitioner with which the petitioner is aggrieved.