Prof. (Dr.) Sham Lal Singla vs State of Punjab and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—The issue in this petition is limited. The petitioner was working with the Punjabi University, Patiala as a Professor in Statistics. He was to superannuate on 31.12.1998. With the introduction of the 5th Pay Commission and the UGC recommendations which proposed that the retirement age of the Professors be increased from 60 to 62 years, some writ petitions came to be filed by the incumbents, who were approaching the age of superannuation praying that the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission be accepted and they be permitted to continue in service beyond the age of 60 years, which was the prescribed age of superannuation and prevailing at that time. The petitioner too preferred a writ petition bearing CWP No. 19311 of 1998 in which interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioner on 22.12.1998. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner continued to serve the respondents. Eventually the matter regarding the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission with regard to the age of superannuation was sorted out, with the Punjab Government taking a firm stand against such a recommendation by issuing a notification to this effect. The writ petitions were then withdrawn. The petitioner also withdrew his writ petition on 11.8.1999. As a result of the aforesaid, the petitioner served the respondent-University for seven months and eleven days over and above the date of superannuation which was 31.12.1998. He had been duly paid his salary during this period.

Upon superannuation, the respondent-University was then required to pay the retiral dues to the petitioner and while doing so, they deducted the amount of this period of seven months and eleven days for which the petitioner had taken the salary.

Ostensibly, the reasoning of the respondent-University is that the petitioner was not entitled to any monetary consequences for this period as he had to be superannuated on 31.12.1998.

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the amount of salary, which was due to him, on account of the fact that he had served the respondents for seven months and eleven days over and above the date of superannuation. The deduction made by the respondents is, thus, erroneous for the simple reason that the petitioner had worked for this period and, therefore, was entitled to the salary which was independent of his claim for the retiral dues.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is accepted and the petitioner is held entitled to the monetary consequences i.e. the salary of seven months and eleven days, which the respondents have erroneously deducted from his retiral dues. The needful be done by reimbursing the total amount to the petitioner with interest @ 7% from the date when the amount was deducted till the date of its realization. The said exercise be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.