VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to declare him entitled to get payment for services rendered in Food Corporation of INdia beyond 28. 2. 1996, more specifically from 1. 31996 to 24. 10. 1997. Further, it is prayed that the recovery of the amount by the respondents vide Annexure P/1 for the period from 1. 3. 1996 to 24. 10. 1997 may be declared illegal. However, it is prayed that the impugned letter dated 8/9. 6. 2005 Annexure-P/3 issued by the respondent No. 3 may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to make payment of Rs. 1,45,947/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it became payable till the actual date of payment.
(2.) ACCORDING to the facts of the case, the petitioner was initially appointed in the Central Food Department of India on 13. 2. 1962 on the post of Shifter. Thereafter, he was transferred to Food Corporation of India where he worked till his superannuation. All of a sudden the petitioner was relieved from services on superannuation on 25. 10. 1997 when he was working as Dusting Operator (Class-IV employee) in the F. C. I. Till that date he was performing duties in the Office of F. C. I. Against the order of superannuation dated 25. 10. 1997, a writ petition was preferred before this Court by the petitioner being SB Civil Writ Petition No. 59/1999 raising his claim for retirement on 28. 2. 1998 and for payment of pension. This Court vide order dated 27. 7. 2001 while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner directed the respondents that ". . . . it is expected from the respondents to determine the amount payable to the petitioner and pay the same to the petitioner. This exercise may be completed within a period of one month from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. If the decision on either of the claims of the petitioner go adverse to him, he is free to approach this Court by way of filing a petition. No order as to cost" In pursuance of the above order passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, a letter was issued to the petitioner on 4. 10. 2001 showing therein the amount of terminal benefits upto 28. 2. 1996 and in that letter recovery of Rs. 1,45,947 was shown for the period of service rendered by the petitioner beyond 28. 2. 1996 and by that letter cheque of Rs. 2,47,131/- was sent to the petitioner after deducting the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,45,947/ -. In this writ petition, the petitioner is not raising voice against the date of his superannuation fixed by the respondents as 28. 2. 1996 because his claim for his superannuation w. e. f. 28. 2. 1998 was earlier rejected by this Court. Meaning thereby, in this writ petition, the petitioner is claiming that although the respondents have fixed his superannuation age as pm 28. 2. 1996 but without any fault of the petitioner, he was allowed to continue on the post upon which he was working till 24. 10. 1997 and during this period he has actually performed the duties and for that purpose he was paid salary, therefore, even if the period commencing from 1. 3. 1996 to 24. 10. 1997 is not counted for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying service for grant of pension the petitioner is entitled for the salary because for this period he had performed his duties and he was paid salary for performing work which is admittedly allowed by the respondents, therefore, the salary which is paid to the petitioner in lieu of his work during the period commencing from 1. 3. 1996 to 24. 10. 1997 cannot be recovered from the petitioner because it is against the principles of natural justice, so also, he has been paid salary for that period while taking work from the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner is claiming salary, which is paid to him for services rendered by him w. e. f. 1. 3. 1996 to 24. 10. 1997 and in that period, the petitioner was allowed to work by the respondents and work was taken from him, therefore, there is no question of recovery of salary, which is paid to the petitioner for this period. Therefore, as per the petitioner, salary which is paid to the petitioner beyond the date of superannuation cannot be recovered because for the said period, the petitioner performed the duties and the respondents took work from the petitioner, therefore, the deduction of salary from his retiral benefits is unjust, unreasonable and against the fundamental principles of governance. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of recovery, so also, prayed to pay the amount of C. P. F. amount, which is deducted from the salary of the petitioner for the said period.
(3.) IN support of his contention, the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment reported in WLR 1995 Raj 446 (Narayan Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) and 1991 (2) RLR 410 (Bhanwar Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court in both the above cases, held that employee cannot be said to refund the salary for the period for which he has actually worked after superannuation date. Per contra, the respondents by way of filing reply, first of all raised an objection that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata because the claim of the petitioner in respect of entitlement of his services rendered after the period beyond 28. 2. 1996 as the actual date of superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years was already decided by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide order dated 31. 8. 2004 and the same was never challenged by the petitioner before any appropriate forum. It is also submitted that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed in which the petitioner has claimed for superannuation w. e. f. 28. 2. 1996. Meaning thereby as per the adjudication made by the Tribunal, the petitioner has not been held entitled for services till 28. 2. 1996, therefore, this writ petition is barred by principle of res judicata. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Food Department of Government of India as Shifter on 13. 2. 1962 and his services were regularized w. e. f. 4. 3. 1981 and after constitution of Food Corporation of India, the services of the petitioner were transferred to Food Corporation of India in the month of March, 1969. Therefore, as per superannuation age prescribed for the employees of Food Corporation of India, the petitioner was required to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years but due to confusion and the fact that the petitioner had opted for services of the answering respondents, he was to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years but due to bonafide mistake that he had opted for the food department while exercising his option, he was not relieved from the services till 28. 2. 1996 but when the papers of the terminal benefits was sent to the Headquarter Office for the finalization of the retiral benefits then it is revealed that the petitioner had opted for the services of Food Corporation of India, so he is not entitled to retain in service after attaining the age of 58 years. When above information was received from the Headquarter Office, the petitioner was relieved immediately from the services on 25. 10. 1997, therefore, there is no question of illegality in retiring the petitioner and treating his superannuation age as 28. 2. 1996. The petitioner cannot claim any retirement benefits beyond said period, therefore, the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,45,947/-, which is paid to the petitioner for the period before the date of superannuation was rightly ordered to be deducted from his retirement benefits, there is no illegality on the part of the respondents. The petitioner is obviously not entitled to get any benefits after attaining the age of superannuation on 28. 2. 1996, therefore, the question of paying CPF amount for the said period does not arise. ;