Supreme Court of India

RADHA KISHUNversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 1997 INSC 208
Decided: 28 February 1997
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYSUJATA V MANOHAR

Holding

An employee who has reached the age of superannuation and is not lawfully re‑employed has no right to salary or service benefits for the period thereafter, and the authorities may recover any amounts wrongly paid.

Summary

The petitioner, a tele‑communications officer, was required to retire on 31 May 1991 upon attaining the age of superannuation but continued in service until 31 May 1994. The Government sought to recover salary and allowances paid to him for the period after his statutory retirement date, and the petitioner challenged the recovery, claiming entitlement to pay and post‑retirement benefits on the basis that he had actually worked during that time. The Supreme Court held that once an employee reaches the age of superannuation, he ceases to have a legal right to salary or service benefits unless re‑employed under a valid authority, and therefore the recovery action was lawful. The Court rejected the petitioner's claim to pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and other benefits for the post‑superannuation period. It further directed the Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officials who failed to enforce the employee's retirement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an employee who continues to serve beyond the statutory superannuation date is entitled to salary and allowances for that period.
Whether the authorities can recover amounts wrongly paid to such an employee.
Whether the employee is entitled to post‑retirement benefits (pension, gratuity, leave encashment, etc.) after the superannuation date.
Whether disciplinary action can be directed against officials for failure to ensure retirement of a superannuated employee.

Subjects

service lawsuperannuationsalary recoveryretirementdisciplinary actionpublic servicepensionillegal continuation of service

Judgment

A                                RADHA KISHUN
                                         v.
                          UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                FEBRUARY 28, 1997

B          (K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]

          Service Law :

          Superannuation-Recovery        of amounts       wrongly     paid    to
C employee-Employee remained in office for three years after the date of his
    superannuation-Department took action to recover the payments made to
    him as salary etc. during the period-Employee challenging the action on the
    ground that he had worked during the period-Claim rejected by
    Tribunal-clfeld, though the petitioner worked during the period but when he
    is not to continue· in service as per law, he has no right to claim the
D   salao-There is no illegality in the action taken by the authorities.

           Lapse in taking timely steps to ensure retirement of an employee on
    attaining superannuation-Govemment directed to take approp1iate discipli-·
    nary action against all persons concemed for their deliberate dereliction of
E   duty in not ensuring petitioner's retirement on his attaining age of superan-
    nuation.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
    Nos. 3721 of 1997.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.96 of the Central Ad-
F
    ministrative Tribunal, Patna in 0.A. No. 652 of 1995.

          M.K. Dua for the Petitioner.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G         This is an astonishing and more shocking case. The petitioner who
    was, admittedly, to retire on May 31, 1991 remained in office till May 31,
    1994 as if he was not to retire from service, enjoying all the benefits of
    service.

H         Th~~ .special leave   petition arises from the order of the Central
                                          582
                            RAD HA KISHUN v. U.O.l.                          583

    Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, made on November 26, 1996 in OA A
    No. 652/95. The petitioner had joined the service in Tele Communications
    Department. Admittedly, his date of birth is May 13, 1933. On attaining
    the age of superannuation, he was to retire on May 31, 1991. Instead,_ he
    remained in service till May 31, 1994. When action was taken to recover
    the amounts paid to him for the period beyond the date he was to retire; B
    viz., May 31, 1991 and to which he was not entitled, he filed QA in the
    Tribunal and the same has been dismissed. Thus, this special leave petition.

           The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the
    petitioner has worked during the period, he is entitled to the payment of
    the pay and allowances from 1.6.1991 to 26.6.1994 and that he is also           C
    entitled to the payment of Provisional Pension, Death-cum-retirement
    gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension amount, GPF money
    and the amou~t deposited under CGHS on the plea that he retired from
    service on May 31, 1994. We are aghast to notice the boldness with which
    it is claimed that he is entitled to all the benefits with effect from the
    abovesaid date when admittedly he was to retire on May 31, 1991. It would
                                                                                    D
    be an obvious case of absolute irresponsibility on the part of the officer
    concerned in the Establishment in the concerned section for not taking any
    action to have the petitioner retired from service on his attaining superan-
    nuation. It is true that the petitioner worked during that period, but when
    he is not to continue to be in service as per law, he has no right to claim     E
    the salary etc. It is not the case that he was re-employed in the public
    interest, after attaining superannuation. Under these circumstances, we do
    not find any illegality in the action taken by the authorities in refusing to
    grant the benefits.

                                                                                    F
          It is then contended that the petitioner would have conveniently
    secured gainful employment elsewhere and having worked, he cannot be
    denied of the legitimate salary to which he is entitled to. Though the
    argument is alluring, we cannot accept the contention and give legitimacy
    to the illegal action taken by the authorities. If the contention is given
    acceptanc;e, it would be field day for manipulation with impugnity and one      G
    would get away on the plea of equity and misplaced sympathy. It cannot

-   and should not be given countenance.

          Under those circumstances, we dismiss the petition with a direction
    to the Government of India to take appropriate disciplinary action against      H
    584'                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A all the persons concerned for their deliberate dereliction of duty in not
    ensuring the petitioner's retirement on his attaining the age of superannua-
    tion.
                                                                                   --~


          The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Secretary,
    Telecommunications, Government of India. The Secretary is directed to
B   ensure immediate action in the matter and submit the compliance report
    to the Registrar of this Court within three months ·from the date of the
    receipt of this order.

    R.P.                                                     Petition dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search