IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1088 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/02/2008 in WP NO : 13169 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary to Government Higher Education Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Collegiate Education Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Intermedidate Education A.P.Hyderabad 4 The Regional Joint Director of Higher Education Government Arts College Campus,Rajahmundry 5 The Regional Joint Director of Higher Education Government Arts College Campus, Rajahmundry. 6 S.R.R. and C.V.R Government College rep by its Prl. Machavaram Vijayawada. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 K.B.G. Joshi S/o.Viswanatham R/o.302, Surendra Towers Pratibha Niketan Road, Machavaram Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Sarada College rep.by its Secretary & Correspondent,Gandhinagar Vijayawada-3 3 S.R.R and C.V.R Government College rep.by its Principal Machavaram,Vijayawada-4 .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The order dated 26-2-2008 passed in W.P.No. 13169 of 2005 has been challenged in this appeal. Suﬃce it to say that respondent No.1 was in employment as a Lecturer under respondents 2 and 3 at diﬀerent times. The question was with regard to the date of birth of respondent No.1-employee. Initially, his date of birth was recorded as 4-6-1947, but subsequently it was changed by an order of a competent Court to 25-5-1949. It is pertinent to note that in the litigation, wherein the date of birth was ordered to be changed, the appellant-Government authority was not a party. According to the original date of birth, respondent No.1 should have retired on 30-6-2005 but by virtue of the litigation and interim order passed in his favour, respondent No.1 was permitted to retire only on 31-5-2007. On or after 1-7-2005, respondent No.1 was not paid any salary, as, according to the employer, he ought to have retired, but he was continued in service only on account of the interim order passed by this Court. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1 worked upto 31-5-2007 and after 30-6-2005 i.e., with eﬀect from 1-7-2005 he was not paid salary but he was paid pension. The question is whether respondent No.1 should be paid salary or compensation in any form for the services rendered by him with eﬀect from 1-7-2005 to 31-5-2007. In view of the admitted fact that respondent No.1 has discharged his duties as a Lecturer for the aforestated period, he must be paid at least on the basis of the principle of Quantum meruit. It is an admitted fact that he has been paid pension during the said period. But the pension has been paid because of the past services, which were rendered by him and not for the services rendered by him during 1-6-2005 to 31-5-2007. Looking to the above facts, in our opinion, salary payable to respondent No.1 from 1-7-2005 to 31-5-2007 has to be paid to him. The pension payable for the period commencing from 1-7- 2005 to 31-5-2007 has already been paid to respondent No.1. The parties to the litigation have submitted that total salary payable for the aforestated period would come to Rs.7,56,549/- whereas the amount of pension paid for the aforestated period is Rs.3,04,280/-. Thus a total amount of Rs.4,52,269/- should be paid to respondent No.1 if he is to be paid regular salary for the aforestated period. Looking to the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we direct that respondent No.1 be paid the aforestated amount of Rs.4,52,269/-. The said amount shall be paid to respondent No.1 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by the concerned respondent. So far as determination of the pension is concerned, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that amount of pension would be determined on the basis of the salary which he had drawn in the month of June, 2005 and it is also a fact that the amount of pension which has been determined is on the basis of the salary which was paid to respondent No.1 for the month of June, 2005. In view of the above direction, this appeal stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th October, 2008 GRR