IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 13702 of 2006 SAMBHU NATH CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE SUMARO CHOUDHERY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MOHANPUR BOGHERA, P.O.- BOGHERA, P.S.- BIHATA, DISTRICT – PATNA, RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF T.B. HOSPITAL, KOEILWAR, DISTRICT – BHOJPUR. ……… PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR. 3. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, T.B. HOSPITAL, KOEILWAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR & JHARKHAND, R. BLOCK, PATNA. ….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 27.04.2011 Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Tej Bahadur Singh, learned A.A.G. No. 7, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Binod Kumar Labh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5/Accountant General. The petitioner while invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court has prayed for directing the respondents for payment of full pension and gratuity treating his service with effect from 12.01.1960 to 31.01.1998 and has also made a prayer for directing the respondents to refund Rs. 30,849.58/- which was deducted from his D.C.R. gratuity. Prayer has also been 2 made to re-calculate G.P.F. amount. The petitioner was a Class IV employee and he was to retire with effect from 31.01.1998. However, even after the date of retirement, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties for further six months. After noticing that the petitioner had drawn salary even after the date of his retirement, a decision was taken by the respondent/State to recover the said amount from his retrial dues, and accordingly, deduction of Rs. 30,849.58/- was made from his D.C.R. gratuity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deduction has incorrectly been made. It was submitted that the petitioner being a Class IV employee had discharged his duty for further six months, and for his work he had received remuneration, which was not required to be recovered from his retrial dues. In this case, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 i.e. Superintendent, T.B. Hospital, Koeilwar, District – Bhojpur. In the counter affidavit, it has been clarified that his service was counted from the date of his initial appointment, even though, it was temporary i.e. 12.01.1960, and accordingly, his pension was fixed. Besides this, specific averment has been made in the counter affidavit that all 3 other retrial dues of the petitioner have been fixed. It has been categorically stated that all other retrial dues of the petitioner have been paid calculating his service from 12.01.1960 to 31.01.1998. In this case, no rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed nor it has been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that all other retrial dues has been paid. Accordingly, it is evident, that all the other retrial dues have already been paid to the petitioner. Now, question is, as to whether, payment made to the petitioner in lieu of his services can be recovered, even though, the petitioner retired on 31.01.1998, and he continued for further six months. On this issue, learned Additional Advocate General No. 7, has argued that this point has already been settled long back in the year 1997, which makes it clear, that if an employee after retirement continues to discharge his duty without any order of re-employment, any amount paid as salary is recoverable. Learned Additional Advocate General No. 7, has heavily relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1997 (2) P.L.J.R. 129 (SC) (Radha Kishan Vs Union of India & Ors.). The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Radha Kishan Case (Supra) has been followed by this Court in number of cases. 4 For reference, he has referred, 2001 (3) P.L.J.R. 143 (Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Bihar & Ors.) & 2006 (1) P.L.J.R. 433 (Mostt. Nathia Vs Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors.). In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Court is of the opinion that while passing an order for recovery of the amount paid as salary after the date of retirement it has rightly been recovered from the retrial dues of the petitioner which requires no interference. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner so far as recovery of Rs. 30,849.58/- is concerned. Since other grievances have already been redressed, there is no need to further keep the matter pending. The writ petition stands disposed of. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)