KAPIL MUNI SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to his original date of birth as entered into service book, the petitioner was to superannuate w.e.f. 31.1.1986 but by Annexure -3 the Department informed the petitioner that he was going to complete the age of 58 years and to superannuate w.e.f. 30.11.1986. Consequently, for preparing the pension papers he was directed to submit the documents. Then again by Annexure -3/1 he was directed by the Department to hand over the charge to the Divisional Forest Officer, Munger. Placing reliance on these two documents the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was admittedly to superannuate w.e.f. 31.1.1986 and in these two letters there is no controversy being raised by the department that his earlier date of superannuation is 30.1.1986.

(2.) IT is required to be stated herein that the petitioner had earlier come to this Court for correction of his date of birth as there was some controversy with regard to that. According to the petitioner the date of birth is 28.1.28 whereas according to the department respondent the date of birth has been cut (interpolated) in the service book and has been made as 28.11.28. Thus, if the original date (uninterpolated) is considered then the petitioner was to superannuate w.e.f. 30.1.1986. This matter was considered in the earlier writ vide CWJC No. 3407 of 1998 (R) but this Court did not like to interfere with the date of birth on the ground that there was a delay of about 11 years. It is clearly stated that the Court considered that the original date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in the impugned letter i.e. 28.1.1986 was the date of birth of the petitioner. As per the date of birth recorded in the service book the petitioner should have retired on 30.1.1986. Now the only question to be answered is even in the aforesaid controversy with regard to the date of birth, if the respondents have taken work from the petitioner till 30.11.1986, whether the respondents shall be liable to pay the salary and the consequential benefit thereon to the petitioner or not. Annexure -3 and 3/1 clearly shows that the petitioner was directed to make over charge to other officials and he was also asked to submit his pension paper. This clearly shows that the petitioner has worked till that date even after the date of his superannuation which according to the respondents was 30.1.1986 and if the petitioner has continued into the service and worked till that date, it was not due to the fault on the part of the petitioner because neither of two documents i.e. Annexure -3 and 3/1 "do indicate that the petitioner had not worked. When the petitioner has worked and he was allowed to work then the petitioner is entitled to get pay for that period. Accordingly this relief is allowed.

(3.) SO far as the G.P.F. is concerned on perusal of para -10 of the impugned Annexure -4 it transpires that Rs. 29,942.99 has been paid to the petitioner by bank draft. These full amount of G.P.F, according to the respondents have been paid. The G.P.F. is the saving of the subscribers/contributers; therefore, it cannot be withheld. Therefore, this is a question of calculation. The petitioner will file another representation giving the difference of the dues of the G.P.F. which shall be cleared by the respondents within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order. The relief is only given to the petitioner with regard to salary the period he worked after 31.1.1986.