Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAGHUNATH SINGH versus D.I.O.S. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raghunath Singh v. D.I.O.S. & Others - WRIT - A No. 10414 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 2077 (24 August 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10414 of 1997

Raghunath Singh..............................................................Petitioner

Versus

District Inspector of Schools,

Ghaiziabad and others................................................Respondents.

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.  Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties this writ petition is being finally disposed of.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.2.1997passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad deciding the representation of the petitioner regarding his date of birth and retiral benefits.  Petitioner worked as Class IV employee in Krishak Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Newada district Ghaziabad.  In the service book maintained by the College his date of birth  initially recorded was 31.5.1930 which date of birth was subsequently corrected as 24.9.1932 and signed by the Principal of the Institution. The school authorities  subsequently came to know that the petitioner had served in the Central Reserve Police Force  where his date of birth was recorded as 31.5.1926. After coming to know about the said date of birth, the petitioner was retired with effect from 31.5.1986.  After the said the petitioner's retiral benefits were not fixed.  He filed writ petition Nol.34129 of 1996 which was disposed of directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation of the petitioner.  By the impugned order the District Inspector of Schools has decided the representation of the petitioner.  The District Inspector of Schools has upheld the date of birth of the  petitioner as 31.5.1926 which date of birth was recorded in the service record of the Central Reserve Police Force and directed for recovery of the salary paid to the petitioner from 31.5.1986 to 31.1.1987 during which period the petitioner has illegally worked on Class IV post.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged only that part of the order dated 19.2.1997 by which direction was issued to recover the salary paid to the petitioner from 31.5.1986 to 31.1.1987. Learned standing counsel refuting the submission of the petitioner contended that the petitioner has got incorrectly recorded  in the service book of the college his date of birth as 31.5.1930 hence the petitioner was  liable to be retired on 31.5.1986 and he is not entitled to any salary thereafter.

I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

The order of the District Inspector of Schools holding that the correct date of birth  of the petitioner is 31.5.1926 is not being challenged and it is upheld. The fact remains that since in his service book the date of birth was initially recorded as 31.5.1930 hence the petitioner was allowed to continue till 31.1.1987 and only when the College authorities came to know about the correct date of birth from record of the Central Reserve Police Force where the petitioner had worked earlier to the posting of peon in the Institution he was retired on 31.1.1987.  The working of the petitioner  till 31.1.1987 was only the basis of the date of birth as recorded in the College service book. There is no dispute that the petitioner has worked upto 31.1.1987 and has been paid salary against his working.  The petitioner is Class IV employee who has been retired on 31.1.1987 i.e. eight years have passed but his retiral benefits have not been fixed.

In view of  aforesaid facts the ends of justice will be served in directing the respondents not to make any recovery of salary already paid to the petitioner from 31.5.1986 to 31.1.1987.  However, the petitioner's retiral benefit shall be fixed treating the date of birth as 31.5.1926 and taking  his date of retirement as 31.5.1986. It goes without saying that the petitioner has received salary 31.5.1986 to 31.1.1987, he is not entitled to any retiral benefit for the aforesaid period.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

D/-24.8.2005

SCS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.