MEHR KHAN vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY WAPDA, MIANWALI and 3
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a service appeal by the Service Tribunal, which had rejected the petitioner's claim as time-barred. The petitioner, a former WAPDA employee, challenged his forced retirement and the subsequent recovery of salary paid to him for the period between his alleged superannuation date and his actual retirement date. The core legal question was whether the Department was justified in recovering salary for services rendered after the petitioner had technically reached the age of superannuation, given that the petitioner had continued to work despite knowing his correct date of birth. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit. The Court reasoned that the petitioner acted without bona fides by continuing in service past his superannuation age while aware of his correct date of birth. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Department was entitled to recover the salary paid during the unauthorized period of service. The principle established is that an employee cannot claim remuneration for services performed beyond the age of superannuation when they have knowingly suppressed their correct date of birth to remain in service.
- Can an employee claim salary for services rendered after the date of superannuation if the employee knowingly suppressed their correct date of birth?
- Is a department entitled to recover salary paid to an employee who continued to work beyond their superannuation age due to a dispute over their date of birth?
- WAPDA Act 1958
ORDER
' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner was initially appointed on 11-2-1953 as Assistant Lineman in the Electricity Department on work-charge basis showing his date of birth as 3-3-1932. Subsequently, after coming into force of WAPDA Act, the petitioner's services along with others, were transferred to WAPDA. The petitioner showed the same date of birth at the time of regularization of his service in WAPDA.
2. While the petitioner was still serving in the WAPDA, on 17-10-1992, the Executive Engineer, Mian Wali addressed a letter to him, informing him that his date of birth was shown in the record as 1-1- 1939. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to supply solid and authentic proof in regard to his date of birth. He was also directed to produce record of Union Council or Municipal Committee and also his school leaving certificate.
3. Although, the petitioner appears to have throughout maintained that his date of birth as 3-3- 1932, but he did not retire on 2-3-1992, after attaining the age of 60 years, but he continued to remain in service. However, his case was examined by the higher authorities and he was made to retire on 1-4-1993. Although, pensionary benefits with effect from 2-3-1932 were allowed to the petitioner, but the salary paid to him for the period between 2-3-1992 and 31-3-1993 was recovered from him.
4. Being aggrieved by such action, the petitioner first approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib on 21-3- 1995 and on rejection of his complaint, he sent his appeal to the Departmental Authority. The appeal remained responded therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 21-11-1995, which, has, however, been dismissed by the Tribunal as barred by time.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court has been that, at least refund of the petitioner's salary for the period he actually performed his duties could not be justified by the Department. We, however, find the said contention to be without merit. The petitioner was well aware that his date of birth was 3-3-1932, yet the petitioner did not inform the concerned Authorities about the same and he continued to be in service after reaching the age of his superannuation. No doubt, it was for the Department concerned to take notice of the date of the petitioner retirement, but notwithstanding the same, the petitioner also did not act bona fide.
We have also noticed that the petition has been dismissed as barred by limitation. However, application for condo nation of delay has been filed by the petitioner. Be that as it may, but without going into this question, the case of the petitioner does not merit consideration even on merits.
' In the result, leave is refused.