Cir.Memo.No.25806-A/592/FR.l/2004 Dated:13-10-2004
Sub: A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of age of
Superannuation) Act, 1984 - one who continues in service beyond superannuation
by mistake is not entitled to any payment - Instructions - Issued.
2. As per Rule 3(1) of the said rules every Government employee, not being a work man and not belonging to last Grade services shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years.
3. As per Rule 3 (2) of the said rules every Government employee, not being a work man and not belonging to last Grade services shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.
4. As per Rule 3(3) of the said rules every work man whether in superior or last grade service, or in any service notified as inferior shall ordinarily be retained in service up to the age of sixty years.
Provided that any workman may be required to retire at any time after attaining the age of fifty-five years after being given one month notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof on the ground of impaired health or being negligent or inefficient in the discharge of duties.
Provided further that a workman may also retire at any time after attaining the age fifty-five years, by giving one month's notice in writing.
5. This Department is receiving proposals relating to payment of salary and other allowances for the period they worked beyond the superannuation and Departments are not taking prompt action for retiring the employees on attaining the age of superannuation. Hence the employees are continuing beyond the age of superannuation and claiming pay and allowances and other retirement benefits.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave petition No. 3721 of 1997 reported in all India Services Law Journal 1997 (Vol.2) in the case of Radha Krishna V.S. Union of India & Ors. did not agree for payment of pay & allowances and other consequential benefits for the period beyond superannuation, the operative portion of the judgement is as follows:
This special leave petition arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, made on November 26 1996 in O.A. No.652/95, the petitioner had joined the service in Tele Communications Department admitted his date of birth is May 13, 1933. On attaining the age of superannuation, he was to retire on May 31, 1991, and to which he was not entitled, he filed O.A. in the Tribunal and the same has been dismissed, thus this special leave petition.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has worked during the period he is entitled to the payment of the pay and allowance from 01.06.1991 to 26.06.1994 and that he is also entitled to the payment of provisional Pension, death-cum retirement gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension amount, G.P.F. money and the amount deposited under CGHS on the plea that he retired from service on May 31, 1994. We are against to notice the boldness with which is claimed that he is entitled to all the benefits with effect from the above said date when admittedly he was to retire on May 31, 1991. It would be an obvious case of absolute irresponsibility on the part of the officer concerned in the Establishment in the concerned section for not taking any action to have the petitioner retired from service on his attaining superannuation. It is true that the petitioner worked during that period, but when he is not to continue to be in service as per law, he was not right to claim the salary etc. It is not the case that he was re-employed in the public interest after attaining superannuation. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the authorities in refusing to grant the benefits.
It is then contended that the petitioner would have conveniently secured gainful employment elsewhere and having worked, he cannot be denied of the legitimate salary to which he is legitimacy to the illegal action taken by the authorities. If the contention is given acceptance, it would be filed for manipulation with impudently and one would get away on the plea of equity and misplaced sympathy. It cannot and should not be given countenance.
Under these circumstances, we dismiss the petition with a direction to Government of India to take appropriate disciplinary action against all the persons concerned for their deliberate dereliction of duty in not ensuring the petitioners retirement on his attaining the age of superannuation".
7. All the Departments of Secretariat and all
HODs / PS Us / Universities etc., may keep in view the above observations of
Supreme Court of India while deciding the issue and communicate all
subordinates concerned.
