The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent raising grievances against the order of the appellant dated 4th of December, 2004 directing recovery of the amount of salary for two years paid to the respondent on account of a dispute with regard to his date of birth despite the fact that the respondent had worked during that period.
The appellant, by the order dated 4th of December, 2004, as numbered herein earlier, directed recovery of the salary on the basis of that order, which was affirmed by a learned Judge of the High Court.
Feeling aggrieved by this order of the learned Judge of the High Court, the respondent filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which quashed the recovery order issued by the appellant, as well as the orders of the learned Judge.
Thereafter, on 12th of February, 2005, by the memo Nos.
It is this order, which is number under challenge before us by way of a Special Leave, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
According to the first mentioned date of birth, the respondent ought to have retired on 28th of February, 2002.
Therefore, the only question that was raised before the Division Bench was whether the order passed by the State Authority dated 4th of December, 2004 and affirmed by the learned Judge was justified or number.
The Division Bench, by the impugned order, had allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Judge and quashed the order of the authority effecting recovery from the retiral dues and also directed the appellant to return and repay the amount recovered till the date of payment.
11th of February, 1944, and 11th of February, 1946, were recorded simultaneously in his service book.
12886 of 2004, in which the respondent claimed for payment of retirement benefit such as pension, gratuity, leave encashment, etc.
As numbered herein earlier, on 4th of December, 2004, a reasoned order was passed vide memo number 340, in the companytext of an order dated 11th of October, 2004, passed in C.W.J.C. No.
The Executive Engineer R.E.O. Works Division, Sasaram through the memo number 05 dated 4th of March, 2005, made a refixation of the amount paid to the respondent under Bihar Government Employees Essential Group Insurance Scheme.
It may be mentioned here that inspite of two dates of birth having been entered into service of the respondent, the State Authorities did number companyrect or delete any of the dates mentioned above for the entire period the respondent was in employment with the State Authorities.
As numbered herein earlier, by the order dated 4th of December, 2004, the appellant passed an order directing recovery of the excess amount drawn by the respondent.
Being thus aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court.
On 14th of August, 1973, the service book of the respondent was opened and two dates of birth of the respondent viz.
But he retired on 29th of February, 2004 according to the other mentioned date of birth in his service book.
Aggrieved thereafter, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Patna and the High Court, by an order dated 2nd of August, 2006, dismissed the writ petition of the respondent, in which it was observed that he was number entitled to refund as he had worked beyond the date of his superannuation for which he alone was responsible.
The respondent, at the relevant point of time, was working as a Correspondence Clerk class III in the office of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Works Division, Sasaram in the State of Bihar.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Leave granted.
30 and 31 of the Executive Engineer, Work Division, Sasaram sanctioned the amount of gratuity and also ordered for deduction of excess amount from group insurance of the respondent in twenty equal installments.
This appeal is directed against an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, by which the respondent had questioned the legality and validity of an order dated 22nd of August, 2006 passed by a learned Judge of that Court, whereby the learned Judge had rejected the Writ Petition filed by the respondent.
The Division Bench, as numbered herein earlier, directed refund of the amount already recovered from the respondent with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of recovery till the date of payment.
By this order, the respondent was ordered to be retired on 28th of February, 2002, on the basis of his date of birth mentioned in his service book i.e. 11th of February, 1944, which was based on his matriculation certificate.
