High CourtsDivision Bench(2002) 10 PAT CK 0026

Most. Kanti Devi and Others vs The State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 31 October 2002 · Citation: (2003) 1 PLJR 9 : (2003) 1 PLJR 247

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J · R.N. Prasad, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
L.P.A. No. 1145 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 329 words
1.

The Petitioner-Appellant has filed this appeal against an order of 27 August 2002 on CWJC No. 9117 of 2000: Most. Kanti Devi and Ors v. the State of Bihar and Ors. Most. Kanti Devi is the widow of a government servant, a Chowkidar one Shridhar Pandey. He filed a writ petition but during its pendency he died. Thus his heirs were substituted. Most. Kanti Devi is the widow and the others are the children.

2.

The admitted facts are that the Petitioner retired on 31 January, 1997 after completing the age of 58 years. His position was that of a Chowkidar in the Building Construction Division, South Bihar Circle, Patna Division of the Public Works Department.

3.

Counter affidavits which have been exchanged are on record of the writ petition. Particularly, one which has been filed by the Executive Engineer accepts in paragraph 16 and 17 that notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner Sridhar Pandey had retired on 31 January, 1997, he yet continue to work until February. 1998.

4.

Rightly or wrongly, the Petitioner Sridhar Pandey was permitted to work and draw his salary. The period of which he worked the will be entitled to the emoluments. If he was given work as a result of any collusion between the officials it is upto the State Government to take action against the officer concerned, who permitted this extension of service beyond retirement. On record, there is nothing against the Petitioner that he may have committed any misrepresentation or fraud so as to extract from the period of retirement.

5.

In the circumstances, there is no occasion for the recovery of the amount which was paid to the Petitioner for having worked but after the period of retirement. In so far as the pension is concerned, the heirs of Sridhar Pandey will be entitled to any arrears of pension and consequential family pension.

6.

Thus, the order dated 27 August,'' 2002 is set aside.

The appeal is allowed.