IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9481 of 2008 Cheedi Sah, Son of Late Bhoju Sah, resident of Village Nashrath Khani, P.O.-Champanagar, P.S.-Lalmatiya (Nathnagar), District- Bhagalpur. ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. The Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University through the Vice Chancellor. 2. The Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 3. The Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 4. The Finance Officer, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 5. The Principal, Tej Narayan Benaily College, Bhagalpur. …….Respondents. ----------- 04. 14.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-University. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the retiral dues have been paid except the leave encashment, the group insurance and the Provident fund, even after he retired on 31st March, 2006 according to the respondent-University. The further grievance is against the Office Order No. 11 of 2007 vide Memo No. 145-151 dated 12.01.2007 whereby it has been alleged that the petitioner although retired on 31st march, 2006, he continued to work till the date of the above Office Order and as such the excess amount drawn by him towards the salary shall be adjusted from the retiral dues payable to the petitioner. It is submitted that even if pensionary benefits may be settled taking the 31st March, 2006 as the date of retirement as stated in the aforesaid Office - 2 - Order but the amount paid to him towards the salary for the work done by him after 31st March, 2006 till 12.01.2007 can not be adjusted from his retiral dues or renewed since he was allowed to work by the University and not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University on the other hand submits that the dues on account of Provident Fund, Leave Encashment as also the group insurance are all in the process of payment. However, he submits that the excess amount drawn by the petitioner towards the salary for the period 31st March, 2006 to 12.01.2007 is liable to be adjusted/recovered since the petitioner had the knowledge that he retired on 31st March, 2006 as continued to work as receive the salary. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically denies the fact that he had any knowledge that he is to retire on 31.03.20006 as a matter of fact the petitioner was expecting his superannuation on reaching the age of 62 years. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, this Court is prima facie of the view that no recovery from the retiral dues can be ordered for the work taken from the petitioner after 31st March, 2006. However, the matter would be different on consideration of relevant facts which may - 3 - borne out from record, in case it is found that due to the misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in any manner the petitioner continued to work or he had knowledge that he is to retire on 31st March, 2006 even then he continued to work. The submission on behalf of the University that since the date of entry of the petitioner into service is not challenged by the petitioner therefore the date of retirement gets automatically fixed and as such petitioner ought to have knowledge of the date of his retirement. In this context, submissions on behalf of the petitioner that the date of birth is also not challenged by the University therefore the date of retirement of the petitioner could not be 31st March, 2006. The date of retirement can be only on attaining the age of 62 years. In my opinion, the above rival submissions on the matter which has to be decided on examining the relevant records of the University. Considering the above the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before the Respondent No. 2, Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi University, Bhagalpur with regard to his grievances against the Office Order No. 11 of 2007 dated 12.01.2007 contained in Annexure-1/A with respect to the adjustment of amount of salary drawn by the petitioner after 31.03.2006 from retiral dues. In case such representation is filed - 4 - within a period of four weeks before the Respondent No. 2, Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, he shall consider the grievances of the petitioner as raised in his representation and disposed of the same in accordance with law by reasoned order expeditiously preferably within a period of three months on receipt of such representation. Till the disposal of the representation, the aforesaid Office Order No. 11 of 2007 dated 12.01.2007 whereby the excess amount is sought to be adjusted if not adjusted as yet shall be kept in abeyance till disposal of the representation. The order passed on the representation shall be communicated to the petitioner by post under registered cover. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application stands disposed of. Vikash/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)