- (1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. Petitioner served as a Khalasi under the respondent-Mineral Area Development Corporation, Dhanbad in Water Supply Sub-Division, Jharia-II under the Executive Engineer, Water Supply, M.A.D.A. Petitioner, however was served with a notice of retirement vide Annexure-1 dated 20.3.2010 issued by the Executive Engineer, Water Supply, M.A.D.A himself stating therein that as per the date of birth recorded in the Service Book i.e. 1.7.1948, he should have retired by 1.7.2008, however in the absence of relevant personal files of the petitioner, notice of retirement could not be given to him. Accordingly, it was indicated that petitioner should treat him as superannuated w.e.f. 1.7.2008. Petitioner's case is that he continued to work thereafter till 30.3.2010 i.e. the date of issuance of notice and since salary is being paid in arrear because of weak financial condition of M.A.D.A, salary beyond 30.6.2008 was only paid up to 30.4.2009 and thereafter he worked without any salary till 30.3.2010. When the post retirement dues of the petitioner were being determined pursuant to the order passed in W.P.S. No. 4548 of 2010 dated 22.7.2011, respondent, Managing Director, M.A.D.A while admitting post retirement dues under different heads due, however went on to hold that petitioner by resorting to fraud has continued in employment beyond his date of retirement i.e. 30.7.2008 and availed of salary till April, 2009. Therefore, salary availed by the petitioner for the period from July, 2008 to April, 2009 totaling Rs. 96,080/- is recoverable from the petitioner, which would be deducted from the other admissible dues. That is why petitioner is before this Court challenging the part of the said order and for release of salary for the period from 1.5.2009 to 31.3.2010.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no finding of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in any inquiry and neither he has been given any show-cause before such determination has been made by the Managing Director, M.A.D.A. In such circumstance, the petitioner who was a simple Class-IV employee working as Khalasi and whose service record were in the custody of Controlling Officer i.e. the Executive Engineer, Water Supply Division, M.A.D.A and the notice of retirement has also been issued on 30.3.2010, the respondents cannot recover the salary availed by the petitioner after having discharged the duty till 30.3.2010 in the conscious knowledge of the respondent- authorities. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand and others passed in W.P.S. No. 3566 of 2014 dated 15.4.2015 where reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and others v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad, 2009 120 FLR 352 .
(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent-M.A.D.A on the basis of instructions contained in their counter affidavit submitted that the age of petitioner was determined in the year 1996 as per the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad dated 24.1.1996 and was held to be of 48 years of age on the date of medical examination. This certificate was annexed as part of service book of the petitioner and reckoning his age thereupon petitioner had reached the age of retirement on 30.6.2008. Petitioner was conscious of the age determination as he had countersigned the report of the Committee. Therefore, petitioner has unauthorizedly worked for 20 months in the services of the authority, hence the amount of Rs. 96,080/- availed by the petitioner has been rightly deducted from his legally payable dues. Rest legally admissible dues amounting to Rs. 5,19,000 and odd has already been paid to him. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the aforesaid amount of salary availed by the petitioner is liable to be recovered from his admissible dues.;