HERNIAL HAZAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India enter 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 Le. 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 le. on 31.3.2004 and he is entitled to full salary.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the case of Mokhtar Ahmad v. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., 1995 1 PLJR 183 and also in the case of <ATYPE>Pranadhar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2003 2 JCR 572</ATYPE>.