The extension of service beyond the age of superannuation was illegal, and the petitioner was not entitled to any salary and allowances beyond the date of his superannuation. The court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's case for commutation of his pension in accordance with the relevant rules.

These two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed by the petitioner seeking some reliefs with regard to his pensionary benefits.

2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner was earlier working as an employee of the Govt of Tripura, Education Directorate. He was sent on deputation to the Tripura State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Agartala (for short, the State Board) as the Secretary of the said State Board by memorandum dated 29.8.1977 of the Govt of Tripura in the Department of Education. Thereafter, he was permanently absorbed with effect from 12.8.80 (Forenoon) on appointment to the post of Secretary of the State Board by memorandum dated 16.8.1980 of the State Board. The petitioner was due to retire at the age of 58 years on 31.3.90. But the State Board in its meeting held on 27.12.89 took a decision for extending the services of the petitioner for a period of one year after he attained the age of 58 years in the public interest. The Chairman of the State Board accordingly issued an office memorandum dated 25.4.1990 extending the services of the petitioner initially for a period of three months in the public interest and thereafter by office memorandum dated 13.6.90 extended the services of the petitioner for a period of one year with effect from 1.5.90. On ompletion of the said period of one year, the Vice Chairman of the State Board issued another office order dated 30.4.91 asking the petitioner to continue in service upto the end of June, 1991. Pursuant to the said orders of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the State Board, the petitioner continued in service upto 30.6.91 and was relieved of his duties and responsibilities in the forenoon of 1.7.1991. Soon after his retirement, a the petitioner submitted an application before the Chairman of the State Board for commutation of V3 rd of his pension of Rs. 2,150 PM. Pending such commutation, the petitioner continued to receive upto July, 1992, pension at the rate of Rs. 2,150/- PM exclusive of Dearness Relief. But by memorandum dated 5.8.92 issued by the Chairman of the State Board, the petitioner was informed that as his date of birth was 1.4.32, his date of retirement on superannuation should have been 31.3.90, and that as he was actually retired on 30.4.90 instead of 31.3.90 the said period of his service with effect from 1.4.90 to 30.4.90 was not regularised by the State Board. By the said memorandum dated 5.8.92, the petitioner was further informed that the extension of his service with effect from 1.5.90 to 30.6.91 was not approved by the Central Social Welfare Board, New Delhi, (for short, the Central Board). By the said memorandum, the petitioner was informed that it had been accordingly decided to pay him his monthly pension at the rate of Rs. 2,100/- only plus admissible Dearness Relief that would have been fixed if he would have retired on 31.3.90 (AN) from the month of August, 1992 until regularisation of his period of service from 1.4.90 to 30.4.90 and his extension of service from 1.5.90 to 30.6.91 by the appropriate authority. Aggrieved by the said memorandum dated 5.8.92, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.8.92 before the Chairman of the State Board against the reduction of his monthly pension from Rs. 2,150 to Rs. 2,100 with effect from 1.8.92 and requested him to review his decision. The said representation dated 19.8.92 of the petitioner was not accepted by the Chairman of the State Board for reasons indicated in the memorandum dated 25.8.92 of the Chairman of the State Board, e On receipt of the said memorandum dated 25.8.92, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 28.8.92 before the Chairman of the State Board. Notwithstanding the said representation dated 28.8.92, the Officer In-charge of the State Board informed the Accountant General, Tripura, Agartala, by his letter dated 24.5.93 that the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 1.4.90 to 30.4.90 has not been regularised and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document