ZUBAIR Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The original petitioner worked and retired from the post of Line Inspector under the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Area Electricity Board on 31st March, 1997. The original petitioner was retired on the said date as he allegedly had continued beyond the natural date of his retirement that should have been 31st January, 1993 as per his date of birth on 23rd January, 1933.

(2.) The aforesaid controversy had reached the Patna High Court earlier in CWJC No. 1517 of 1997 (R) where the original petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the respondents treating his date of birth as 25th January, 1938. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 20th May, 1998 with a direction that respondents should make an inquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing regarding fixing of date of birth of the petitioner herein within stipulated period. It was also observed that if the petitioner was to retire in the month of January, 1998 as a result of such inquiry and speaking order passed thereupon, all consequential benefits from the date when he had been prematurely retired should be made available to the said petitioner within the stipulated period.

(3.) The inquiry conducted thereafter through expert opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna was against the petitioner. He therefore challenged it in W.P.(S) No. 2572 of 2002 before this Court and in the judgment rendered on 21st April, 2004, Annexure-1, the learned Single Judge of this Court after noticing the judgment passed in the case of the petitioner in CWJC No. 1517 of 1997 (R) as also taking into account the expert opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, came to the view that the approach adopted by the respondent authority and the reasons assigned by him is correct and justified, and, therefore, no relief was granted to the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed. However, with regard to the payment of arrears of retiral dues, the petitioner was allowed to represent before the competent authority, who, in turn, was directed to decide it on merits within stipulated period and if any amount was found payable, the same were directed to be paid to him. Pursuant to the said direction passed in earlier writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2572 of 2002 as aforesaid, the respondents while granting the post retiral benefits to the petitioner sought to recover a sum of Rs. 3,45,859/- by letters impugned herein dated 29th May, 2004 and 26th June, 2004. The same is under challenge in the writ petition stating that since the petitioner had served during the extended period from February, 1993 to March, 1997 without any misrepresentation on his part, the said amount of salary ought not to have been recovered.