RADHA KISHUN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 28-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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. 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
Nos. 3721 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.96 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Patna in 0.A. No. 652 of 1995. 
M.K. Dua for the Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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 
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 
D 
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. 
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 
F 
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, Govern
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.