Dost Mohammad Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.

Dost Mohammad vs Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.

Disposition Application Allowed Court Patna Decided Jun 24, 1998

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/123570

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/123570
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: S.N. Mishra, J.
Decided On: Jun 24, 1998
Case Number: C.W.J.C. No. 9041 of 1998
Subject: ;Service
Disposition: Application Allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Law - Date of birth of petitioner and retiral dues and salary--Question was whether petitioner was entitled to salary for the period from 30.9.94 to 2.4.96 when he was made to retire w.e.f. 30.9.94--In view of Disputed dates of birth mentioned in Service Book, respondent--Electricity Board has acted upon Med...

Key legal issue: ;Service
Outcome / disposition: Application Allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dost Mohammad

Respondent

Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.

Court's Analysis

Prior History: S.N. Mishra, J.
1. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The only dispute in this writ application is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period from 30.9.94 to 2.4.96 when he was made to retire with effect from 30th September, 1994. In view of the disputed dates of birth mentioned in the service book, the respondent Electricity Board has acted upon the Medical Certificate pro

Excerpt

service law - date of birth of petitioner and retiral dues and salary--question was whether petitioner was entitled to salary for the period from 30.9.94 to 2.4.96 when he was made to retire w.e.f. 30.9.94--in view of disputed dates of birth mentioned in service book, respondent--electricity board has acted upon medical certificate produced by petitioner on the basis of which his date of superannuation was determined as on 30.9.94--petitioner was made to retire by order dated 2.4.96 w.e.f. 30.9.94--petitioner was allowed to work till 2.4.96--claim of petitioner was that he was entitled to salary for the period he has worked beyond the date of retirement--held, petitioner entitled to the salary for the period for which he has worked beyond date of actual retirement, and the same cannot be realised out of his retiral dues--respondent--board liable to pay the same and accordingly directed to pay salary as claimed. - - 2. in this case, the petitioner was under the impression that according to the date of birth mentioned in the service book, he will retire in the year 1996, particularly when he was allowed to work by his employer till 1996, and rightly the respondent board paid the salary to the petitioner for the period, in question, as well......to work till 2.4.96 and, as such, the claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the salary for the period he has worked beyond the date of retirement. the question false for consideration in this writ application is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period in question. in support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in the case of radha kishan v. union of india and ors. reported in 1997(2) pljr 129 (sc), wherein it has been held that, in such a situation, the employee is entitled at least to the salary for the period he has been allowed to work beyond the period of superannuation. in opposition learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the apex court judgment in the case of kashi ram v. bihar state electricity board and ors. reported in 1998(1) pljr 829. i have gone through the decisions relied upon by the parties. in the case of kashi ram (supra), it has been held that in case where fraud has been committed by the employee in order to continue in service even beyond the date of superannuation, such employee is not entitled to the salary for the period beyond the date of his superannuation. in this case, there is no allegation that the petitioner has committed fraud in order to continue on his post even beyond his date of superannuation. as stated above, there are two different dates mentioned in the service book. according to the petitioner his date of birth in 17.8.38 which has been recorded in the service book. according to the electricity board, however, the date of birth of the petitioner is 1934 as per the entry made in the service book on the basis of the medical certificate dated 24.9.68. it is, therefore, obvious that the respondent electricity board was aware of the disputed date of birth and even then the petitioner was allowed to work beyond the date of his retirement. if the petitioner has been allowed to work by his.....

Full Judgment

S.N. Mishra, J.

1. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The only dispute in this writ application is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period from 30.9.94 to 2.4.96 when he was made to retire with effect from 30th September, 1994. In view of the disputed dates of birth mentioned in the service book, the respondent Electricity Board has acted upon the Medical Certificate produced by the petitioner on the basis of which his date of superannuation was determined as on 30th September, 1994. Admittedly, the petitioner was made to retire by order dated 2.4.96 as contained in Annexure-5 w.e.f. 30.9.94. The petitioner was allowed to work till 2.4.96 and, as such, the claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the salary for the period he has worked beyond the date of retirement. The question false for consideration in this writ application is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period in question. In support of his submission learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in the case of Radha Kishan v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1997(2) PLJR 129 (SC), wherein it has been held that, in such a situation, the employee is entitled at least to the salary for the period he has been allowed to work beyond the period of superannuation. In opposition learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the Apex Court Judgment in the case of Kashi Ram v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 1998(1) PLJR 829. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the parties. In the case of Kashi Ram (supra), it has been held that in case where fraud has been committed by the employee in order to continue in service even beyond the date of superannuation, such employee is not entitled to the salary for the period beyond the date of his superannuation. In this case, there is no allegation that the petitioner has committed fraud in order to continue on his post even beyond his date of superannuation. As stated above, there are two different dates mentioned in the Service Book. According to the petitioner his date of birth in 17.8.38 which has been recorded in the Service Book. According to the Electricity Board, however, the date of birth of the petitioner is 1934 as per the entry made in the Service Book on the basis of the Medical Certificate dated 24.9.68. It is, therefore, obvious that the respondent Electricity Board was aware of the disputed date of birth and even then the petitioner was allowed to work beyond the date of his retirement. If the petitioner has been allowed to work by his employer knowing the date of birth mentioned in his service book, even beyond the date of retirement, he is entitled to, at least, the salary for the period he has worked beyond the date of his retirement. At lease the said period shall not be counted for the purpose of payment, of retiral dues.

2. In this case, the petitioner was under the impression that according to the date of birth mentioned in the Service Book, he will retire in the year 1996, particularly when he was allowed to work by his employer till 1996, and rightly the respondent Board paid the salary to the petitioner for the period, in question, as well. It is said that though the salary had been paid for the period, in question, except for the months, yet the same is sought to be realised from the retiral dues legally payable to the petitioner. Taking into consideration the submissions and the law laid down in the aforesaid decision, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period for which he has worked beyond the date of actual retirement and the same cannot be realised out of his retiral dues. In the result, the order dated 20.11.97 contained in Annexure-9 is hereby quashed. The writ application is accordingly allowed. The grievance of the petitioner is that still salary for two months is due which has not been paid as yet. If it is so the respondent Board is liable to pay the same and the respondent Electricity Board is accordingly directed to pay the salary as claimed within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Same Court & Year Patna · 1998 Same Parties Dost Mohammad vs Bihar State Electricity Board and ors. Same Subject ;Service Same Judge S.N. Mishra, J.

;Service