High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Tulsi Ram v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 462 of 2006  RD-AH 9566 (15 May 2006)
Court No. 34
Special Appeal No. 462 of 2006
State of U.P. & Ors,.
Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
This Special Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 4th April, 2006 of a learned Judge of this Court by which the writ petition was dismissed. The learned Judge concluded that the petitioner's date of birth was 2nd July, 1940 as this date of birth was recorded in his service book at the time of entry in service. According to this date of birth, the appellant reached the age of superannuation on 1st August, 1998. However, some manipulation was done in the service book and his date of birth was changed from 2nd July, 1940 to 15th October, 1946. He, therefore, continued in service for a further period of six years. However, an enquiry was concluded and ultimately the order dated 17th December, 2004 was passed by the appointing authority holding that the date of birth was 2nd July, 1940 and so he would superannuate on 1st August, 1998.
The appellant for the reasons best known to him without challenging the said order filed writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to make the payment of retiral benefits with 12% interest. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge.
We do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge for the reason that the judgment stands fully fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Narasimha Sundram AIR 1994 SC 599 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
"So far the question of payment of arrears of salary is concerned, we do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent can be refused his emoluments for the period in question as no proceedings were ever initiated for inquiry as to the alleged fraud played by the respondent on the department. It is not denied that the respondent worked till 30th September, 1989 and in that view we confirm that part of the impugned judgment which refers to the salary. The respondent should be paid his arrears of salary, if not already paid, within two months from today."
Subsequently, in Radha Kishun Vs. Union of India & Ors,.(1997) 9 SCC 239 the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued a direction for recovery with interest of the entire salary that had been received by the employee therein after reaching the age of superannuation.
In view of the above, we see no good reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The Special Appeal stands dismissed with the direction to the respondents to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.