IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2137 of 2006 MADHO RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. D.K.Sinha,Advocate For the Gaya Municipal Mr. R.K.Priyadarshi Corporation: Advocate For the State:Mr. R.C.Prasad Bharti S.C.-14 & Mr.S.K.Singh, J.C. to S.C.14 ------- 6 9.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner based on an order dated 16th February, 2002 contained in annexure-1 is claiming salary from the respondents from 1st of November, 2000 till 16th of February, 2002. His contention is that since he has worked under the respondents, Nagar Nigam till the order in question came to be passed he is entitled to his salary. By virtue of annexure-1 it would be evident that the petitioner had rendered 40 years of service. On 30.10.2000 the petitioner ought to have superannuated on that date itself. But it seems that due to some over sight or man management the petitioner continued to work on the post till this fact came to the notice of the administrator who has passed the order in question contained in annexure-1. Normally as a proposition of law, when an employee has worked he is entitled to his salary but there can be exceptions. Petitioner in terms of Government decision can render service only till he reaches the age of superannuation or forty years of service whichever is earlier as there used to be - 2 - problems, with regard to the age of such employees at the time of entry into service. Every employee knows the date when he is going to superannuate from service. If for any reason he continues to over stay in service even after the age or date of superannuation then the entire burden cannot be shifted on the employer for having lost fact in this regard and they not having taken an appropriate decision at the appropriate time. The contention of the respondents in this regard is that the petitioner had been ordered to retire from 30.10.2000 when he had completed 40 years of service. This order came to be passed when he asserted his right to claim salary from the respondents and the records were verified after that date. The Court’s attention has been drawn to a decision of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Mostt. Nathia Vrs. Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in 2006(1) PLJR 433 where the Court categorically records that every employee knows the date of his/her superannuation and honest public servant has to leave office on the date of superannuation. If he/she continues even after superannuation and withdraws salary then it may be recovered and the employer can not be restrained that there was no fraud and misrepresentation on part of the employee. A similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Kishun vrs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1997(2) PLJR SC 129. Learned counsel for the petitioner however relies - 3 - on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Bihar vrs. Narasimha Sundram reported in AIR 1994 SC 599 claiming his right for payment of salary even for the period he has over stayed after superannuation. But the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court will have to be read in the light of the pleading and in the given facts of the case. In the opinion of this Court the petitioner has no claim for payment of salary after his date of superannuation and the writ application is misplaced. It is dismissed accordingly. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)