HEMLAL HAZAM Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the letter no. 926 dated 15.10.2003 issued by the District Education Officer, Bokaro (Respondent No.3) whereby following the instructions contained in said office order of the respondent no. 4, the Headmaster, State Subsidised High School, Bhendra, Bokaro forcefully superannuated the petitioner with effect from 31.12.1999 on the ground that he has already completed 40 years of service. Petitioner has also prayed that the order of refund of Rs. 2,31,000/ - (Rupees Two Lakhs thirty one thousand), which is excessively paid to the petitioner from January, 2000 to June, 2003 is also to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 18.10.1959 in the State Subsidised High School, Bhendra, Bokaro and subsequently on 2.10.1980, the State Government took over the establishment of the said School. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the date of birth of the petitioner is 2.3.1946. However, he was directed to retire on 31.12.1999, which according to him is premature retirement. It is submitted that under Rules 54 and 73 of Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, the retirement age of Government servant is 58 years. It is also submitted that employee stands superannuated only on attaining age of superannuation and cannot be retired on the ground of completion of 40 years of service. It is also submitted that the action of the respondents authority pushing back his date of birth and assigning him imaginary date of birth as well as date of superannuation is arbitrary and there is no justification for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has actually worked beyond 31st of December, 1999 i.e. from January, 2000 to June 2003 and G.P.F. was also deducted during that period. In support thereof, he placed reliance on Annexure -5 to the writ petition. It is submitted that petitioner is entitled for fixation of pension on the basis of his actual date of retirement i.e. on 31.3.2004 and he is entitled to full salary.

(3.) IT appears from the record that though respondent nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 have been arrayed as respondents, but no separate reply has been" filed in the matter by each of them. It appears that on behalf of the said respondents, the respondent no. 3 has filed counter -affidavit as District Education Officer. Learned counsel for the State has referred to and relied upon the counter -affidavit filed by Mahip Kumar Singh, District Education Officer (Respondent No.3) in this writ petition while referring various paragraph of the said affidavit. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that fact of this case is that the date of birth of the petitioner is 2.3.1946 and he joined in service on 18.10.1959 therefore the appointment of the petitioner was made at the age of 13 years 9 months and 15 days i.e. in minor age, which is illegal and not permissible in Government rules and regulations. In Government service minimum age limit fixed for appointment is 18 years and the age of superannuation is 58 years. In other way the maximum tenure of service length is 40 years of service. It is submitted that entrance in Government Service normally available to a person who attained majority. It is well settled that contract with a minor is not permissible under law. If a person enters in Government Service at the age of about 13 years, such entry on the basis of a contract is void. As per the petitioner, his date of birth is 2nd of March, 1946 and he was initially appointed as a peon by the School Management Committee at the age of 13 years 9 months and 15 days and therefore, the same is questionable one. The School was adopted by the Government on 2nd of October, 1980 and therefore, the petitioner's service has been counted from that only. It is submitted that the petitioner, despite knowing well that a Government Servant appointed below the age of 18 years can serve 40 years tenure of his service, he suppressed all the facts and even after completion of 40 years service, he did not inform to his Superannuation Authority. When the respondent authorities came to know about the matter then necessary actions were taken by the respondent authorities to pay the retiral benefits legally payable to him. It is also submitted that the excess amount taken by the petitioner during the period from 1.1.2000 to 30.6.2003 is recoverable from the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner, right from beginning, illegally appointed by School Management at the age of 13 years but after completion of 40 years of service, he has been superannuated by the respondent concerned. As per the rules and regulations, all retiral benefits legally payable in favour of the petitioner, has been paid. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the State that petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for and his writ petition may be rejected.