PREM CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-139
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 05,2010

PREM CHANDRA MISHRA Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE challenge is to the order whereby a recovery of Rs. 57138/- is sought to be made being excess salary paid to the petitioner after he attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2008. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner had worked and he had not been served with any retirement memo, therefore, there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and, as such, the recovery cannot be made. It is undisputed that the age of superannuation of the petitioner was completed on 30.6.2008. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was to retire on the said date. In view of this undisputed position, the Rules do not permit the continuance of the petitioner beyond the said date except in cases of a valid extension order. There is no order extending the services of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the amount which is sought to be recovered, cannot be said to unjustified and incorrect payment made to a public servant beyond the period of retension in service cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner does not have a vested right to receive the salary after having attained the age of superannuation. Salary is paid for services rendered in accordance with rules. Any service rendered beyond the period of retirement is in violation of rules which cannot entitle the petitioner to claim salary as a vested or accrued right. There being no right to continue in service, there is occasion to infer entitlement of payment of salary. The petitioner in fact and in law shall be presumed to have knowledge about his date of retirement according to the service conditions applicable. The petitioner, having knowledge, has voluntarily chosen to continue which in turn cannot confer a legal right to claim salary. In view of this, the impugned order cannot be interfered with.
(3.) LEARNED counsel contends that if that is so then the amount which is sought to be recovered, may be adjusted and he may be paid retiral benefits for which the petitioner is entitled in accordance with law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.