DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J. - (1.) An important issue, which is often confronting Courts, falls for determination by this Full Bench. An employee, continues in service beyond the superannuation age of 58 years on the strength of an interim order, is fastened with deduction of the amounts paid as salary from his retiral benefits on the dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous.
(2.) A learned single Judge of this Court was confronted with the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Harendra Kunwar 1995 All LJ 1603 and State of J&K v. Pirzada GhulamNabi 1998 (9) SCC 102 where it was held that incumbent who has continued in service beyond the age of superannuation on the strength of an interim order, may not be entitled to retain or receive salary in case the writ petition is ultimately dismissed either on merits or as infructuous. And the contrary view also of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Madras &Anr. v. K.M. Rajamanickam 1995 (2) SCC 98 : 1995-II-LLJ-677 and Burn Standard Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Dina Bandhu Majumdar & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1499 : 1995 (4) SCC 172 both followed by a learned single Judge of our Court in Ram Khelwan Pathak v. State of U.P. and others 1998 All LJ 1575 where it was held that an employee who actually worked on the strength of an interim order would be entitled to his salary even though the writ petition may have been dismissed subsequently. Thus, he referred the issue to a Larger Bench.
(3.) Minimal facts, necessary for deciding the issue in this petition are:;