IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18397 of 2009 NAND KUMAR S/O LATE RAM KIRPAL, R/O VILL & P.O. BALAIN, P.S.UDWANTPUR, DISTT- BHOJPUR ---Petitioner Versus 1. VEER KUWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, VEER KUWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARA. 3. THE REGISTRAR, VEER KUWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARA. 4. THE FINANCE OFFICER, VEER KUWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARA. ---Respondents ----------- 5. 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-University. The petitioner has been made to retire from the post of Laboratory Bearer on 25th of January, 2006 as per the letter dated 28.1.2006 (Annexure 1) issued by the office of the Principal, Maharaja College, Arrah. It is submitted that upon the superannuation of the petitioner, gratuity amount of Rs.1,11,771/- was sanctioned for payment. However, the said amount was not paid allegedly on the ground that the petitioner had worked in excess for a period of one year, one month and 13 days, for which he was paid excess salary amounting to Rs.87,184/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the counter affidavit, it would appear that the aforesaid sum of Rs.87,184/- was adjusted from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Submission is that the petitioner had worked during the material time and as such, he was rightly paid and there is no - 2 - allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in continuing the service. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University submits that the petitioner was appointed initially on 12.12.1960 on Class IV post and as per the birth certificate, it transpired that on the date of appointment he was 16 years of age and as such he got himself appointed much below the prescribed age of 18 years. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not play any role in securing such appointment and the authority concerned on perusal of his birth certificate appointed him and as such the petitioner cannot be faulted and more so when he continued in service since 1960 till the date of his retirement in the year 2006. It is further submitted that the recovery of the aforesaid amount to the tune of Rs.87,184/- was absolutely not justified in law. However, it is submitted that the petitioner did not file any representation before any authority to consider his case that he cannot be faulted as he did not play any fraud or misrepresentation. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of his aforesaid grievances for recovery of the said amount, the petitioner proposes to file a representation before the Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara (respondent no.3), with a copy each to respondents no.2 and 4. In case such a representation is filed stating the grievances that no amount could be recovered from him as the petitioner cannot be faulted for working allegedly in excess of the - 3 - actual date of his retirement as also stating the details of his unpaid claims as also enclosing the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of such claims along with the certified copy of the present order within a period of four weeks, the grievances of the petitioner as raised in his representation be considered in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. Upon consideration, in case it is found that the petitioner did not play any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the appointment, the amount deducted from him to the tune of Rs.87,184/- be refunded back to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within two months thereafter. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)