The prohibition of recovery of emoluments paid for work rendered by an employee, even if beyond entitlement, as it would amount to begar, prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is the widow of a Class-IV employee, who superannuated from the services of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bindki, District Fatehpur, as a Daftari on 05.01.1995. She has not been paid the post retiral benefits due on account of her husband's services, including family pension till date. This is the case that the petitioner has come up with before this Court, praying for the issue of a mandamus directing the respondents to sanction and disburse the post retiral benefits due on account of her husband's services.

2. Heard Mr. Sudheer Rana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 and Mr. Vimla Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

3. According to the petitioner, her husband, Mubarak Hussain, retired as a Daftari, a Class-IV employee with the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bindki, District Fatehpur. He retired on 05.01.1995, and passed away within the course of a year, on 16.12.1995. His services were acknowledged by the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, with the Palika, passing a condolence resolution showering encomiums. Still, the petitioner's post retiral benefits were not paid. The petitioner says that by the time she instituted the present writ petition, she had become a lean and impoverished woman of 81 years, looking forward to the payment of her husband's post retiral benefits, including the family pension.

4. There is a letter dated 12.01.1996 on record from the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad addressed to the Collector, Fatehpur concerning the post retiral benefits due to the petitioner for her husband's services. This letter seems to have been written in ignorance of the factum of the employee's death, because it refers to pension payable to Mr. Mubarak Hussain, a retired Daftari. All that it says is that the required pension papers have not been forwarded by the Collector to the Commissioner, which should be made available. It is the petitioner's case that she has visited the office of the Nagar Palika Parishad time over again during all these many years and decades, but to no avail. It is also averred that the petitioner is dependent on the meagre income of her son, who is a married man and works as a labourer to earn his livelihood. It is averred in Paragraph No.19 of the writ petition that there are no dues outstanding against the petitioner's late husband payable to the employers, yet the petitioner is being denied her legitimate rights to pension etc. It is also pleaded that pension is not a bounty, as also the other post retiral benefits, which should come to her after her husband's demise. She has no source of livelihood and is on the verge of starvation.

5. There are two counter affidavits, carrying the respondents' substantial defence, that is to say, one on behalf of respondent no.3, the District Magistrate, Fatehpur and the other on behalf of respondent no.4, the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bindki, Fatehpur represented by its Executive Officer. The last affidavit is sworn by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad.

6. The stand taken in both the counter affidavits is almost identical. It is not denied that the petitioner's husband retired from the post of Daftari, but the date of his retirement is denied. The Nagar Palika Parishad say that he retired on 30.09.1994, whereas the petitioner says that it was 05.01.1995. That date may not be very material. The defence which the Nagar Palika Parishad have put forward, amongst others, in Paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit, is that the petitioner's husband has worked 10 months exceeding the period of his service, on the basis of something described as "wrong papers". It is alleged that he has drawn salary for 10 months beyond his entitlement to work. As such, the Director, Sthaniya Nidhi Lekha Pariksha Vibhag, U.P., Allahabad vide Letter No. 2232 dated 04.01.1996 has raised an objection in this regard. The Pension De