FULMANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order as contained in pension payment order issued by the Accountant General vide memo No. Pen III -07 -08 -3980 dated 16.6.2007 (Annexure 1) whereby Rs. 3,60,954/ - has been shown as Government dues and has been ordered to be debited from the amount of pension. Further order as contained in memo No. 4231 dated 19.7.2007 issued by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi has also been sought to be quashed whereunder Senior Superintendent of Police directed the Treasury Officer, Ranchi to adjust Rs. 3,60,954/ - from the amount of pension and gratuity of the petitioner.

(2.) IT is admitted case of the partes that the petitioner was appointed against the post of Sweeper in the year 1964 but at the time of her appointment, her date of birth was not noted in the service book. However, when in the year 1994 -95 the above defect was detected, the petitioner was sent to Civil Surgeon, Ranchi for assessment of her age. On examination, age of the petitioner was ascertained to be 56 years which was communicated by the Civil Surgeon, vide letter dated 30.11.1995. On the basis of that report, office order was drawn and the age of the petitioner was entered into the service book and according to that entry, the petitioner was supposed to retire on 31.3.1998. However, according to the petitioner, the petitioner being illiterate was not aware about the date of retirement and, hence, she went on putting her services until 30.11.2004 when she was asked to vacate the post which she did and during this period, the petitioner did draw the salary. Now the authority has sought to recover the amount which the petitioner has drawn for the period from 1.4.1998 to 30.11.2004 which is quite illegal as the petitioner was allowed to continue to discharge his duties without there being any misrepresentation.

(3.) HOWEVER , stand of the respondent is that on the basis of the age ascertained by Civil Surgeon, Ranchi, the petitioner was to retire on 31.3.1998 which the petitioner was fully knowing but the petitioner continued her services even after attaining the age of superannuation without there being any order of the controlling authority though, under order as contained in memo No. 3/F -02/88 (Part I)/1600 V (2) issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar on 1.4.1991, the petitioner was not supposed to continue after attaining the age of superannuation but the petitioner continued her services till 30.11.2004 and hence, salary drawn for aforesaid period is adjustable towards the amount of pension and gratuity of the petitioner.