- (1.) THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated April 5, 2010 is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him with interest Rs.34,121 deducted from his gratuity and pension arrears towards recovery of overpaid salary and allowances.
(2.) THE petitioner was a primary school teacher. According to the provisions of the ROPA Rules that he had opted in to, he was to retire from services on reaching the age of 60. Hence he was to retire on July 31, 1995. He was, however, kept in employment till June 30, 1996. Salary, etc. paid for August 1, 1995-June 30, 1996 were deducted from the retirement benefits. With the Affidavit-in-Opposition the respondents have produced a GO No.845-SE (Pry) dated August 12, 1998 in support of their case that the GO authorised them to recover salary and allowances the petitioner was paid for August 1, 1995-June 30, 1996; for the petitioner opted in to the ROPA Rules, 1990 and hence was to retire from services on reaching the age of 60 on July 31, 1995. Mr. Manna appearing for the petitioner has argued that since the respondents took the petitioner's services salary and allowances he was paid for the period in question could not be recovered on the grounds of overpayment. The case stated in the opposition as follows. The petitioner was not entitled to serve after July 31, 1995. The GO dated August 12, 1998 entitled the respondents to recover the overpaid salary and allowances from the petitioner's retirement benefits.
(3.) IT is not the case that though the petitioner was superannuated on July 31, 1995, he forcibly continued to attend the school and discharge duty as a teacher. Nor is it the case that the respondents took his services and paid him salary and allowances month by month because of fraud exercised by him. It is evident that the respondents kept the petitioner in employment because of pending Court cases. Now the question is whether salary and allowances he was paid for August 1, 1995-June 30, 1996 could be recovered from his retirement benefits. During the period in question the petitioner worked as a primary school teacher. He was paid salary and allowances month by month only because he discharged his duties. The respondents asserting that the GO entitled them to recover the salary and allowances they paid the petitioner for the period, have not said how they propose to compensate the petitioner whose services they took during the period in question. In my opinion, this is a totally wrong approach.;