Retirement benefits are calculated based on the official retirement date, even if employment continued under interim orders beyond that date.

ORDER :

T. Madhavi Devi, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in withholding the difference of gratuity, provident fund and family pension from the petitioner in spite of the amounts being released by the respondents No.4 and 5 as illegal and arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law, unconstitutional and an unfair labour practice and to further declare that the order issued by the respondent No.3 modifying the earlier order dated 31.03.2016 vide proceedings dated 17.12.2016 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the difference of amounts payable to the petitioner with interest and penalty and to grant all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent Corporation as a daily wage conductor on 11.03.1985 after selection by the Selection Committee and thereafter his services were regularized with effect from 28.08.1985. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk on 04.07.2011. The respondent Corporation issued a notice of retirement to the petitioner on 19.03.2012 stating that he would be attaining the age of superannuation on 03.03.2012, as his date of birth was recorded as 04.03.1954. According to the petitioner, he studied up to the SSC and in his school certificate, his date of birth was recorded as 04.03.1958 and therefore, there was a discrepancy with regard to the date of retirement. In view thereof, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9068 of 2012, questioning the order of retirement and this Court had granted an interim direction to continue the petitioner in service. While the petitioner continued in service, another proceeding of retirement was issued on 31.03.2016, observing that even if the date of birth of the petitioner was taken as 04.03.1958, the petitioner would retire on 31.03.2016. It is submitted that thereafter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 10.11.2016, directing the respondents to pay the pension to the petitioner by taking his date of retirement as 31.03.2012 and granting liberty to the petitioner to claim the difference in amount by filing a separate writ petition, if so advised.

3. The petitioner claims to have made a representation to the respondent Corporation requesting them to arrange for payment of the difference in the amount up to 31.03.2016, as the respondents have deducted amounts towards the provident fund contribution and that respondents No.4 and 5 have sent the amounts payable to the petitioner towards the provident fund up to 31.03.2016, but respondents No.1 to 3 did not settle the same and have illegally withheld the said amounts. It is submitted that the employee’s share of the provident fund has been deducted from the petitioner’s salary till 31.03.2016 and the employer contribution was also made and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to both the contributions and also the pension and the difference of gratuity. It is submitted that in order to defeat the claim of the petitioner, the respondents have again passed orders modifying the earlier order dated 31.03.2016 vide order dated 17.12.2016, restricting the payment only up to 31.03.2012. Challenging the restriction of retirement benefits only up to 31.03.2012 and not up to 31.03.2016, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit and has placed reliance upon the following two judgments in support of his contentions:

(1) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nani Gopal Dutta and