IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8301 of 2010. Date of decision: 18.6.2011. Smt. Mali Devi … Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. _______________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG. Deepak Gupta, J .(Oral) 1. The petitioner is working as sweeper with the respondent- department. According to the petitioner, she was superannuated on 15.9.2010 but now a sum of Rs. 39,690/- on account of leave encashment equivalent to leave salary has been ordered to be deducted from her dues, on the ground that she should have retired on 31.3.2010. 2. According to the respondent-department the petitioner was actually superannuated on 15.9.2010. Further according to the respondent-department, in fact the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 58 years on 31st March, 2010 and should have been retired with effect from that date. Consequently, the respondent-department issued a letter dated 7.10.2010 directing that she should be deemed to 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -2- have retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years and, therefore the excess salary paid to her be recovered. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner misrepresented or gave false facts to the respondent which in any way led the respondent to retire her at a later stage. 3. The stand of the respondent is that it was the duty of the petitioner to have informed the department that she had attained the age of superannuation. The stand of the respondent-department to say the least is ludicrous. I am indeed shocked that the respondent-department can raise such a plea that petitioner should have informed her administrative department about her date of birth. Since there is no fault of the petitioner and she has worked till 15.9.2010 she is entitled to salary for this period. Therefore, no deduction can be made. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the order Annexure P-3 is quashed. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 18th June, 2011 (Krn Guleria)