Salary for services rendered cannot be recovered from pension despite subsequent correction of date of birth.

The applicant, a Leading Fireman appointed in 1980, had his date of birth (DOB) recorded as 22.12.1957 in his service book

In 2013, following damage to the service book, a verification against school records indicated his DOB as 22.12.1956

Although the department initiated a process to change the DOB, no final decision was taken before the applicant retired on 31.12.2017 based on the original 1957 entry

Post-retirement, the respondents released his pensionary benefits only after recovering the salary paid to him for the period of 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017, asserting he should have retired a year earlier

The applicant challenged this recovery, arguing he is entitled to the salary for the period he actually served

1. Whether the respondents are legally permitted to recover salary paid for a period of service actually rendered by an employee prior to a formal dispute regarding the date of birth being resolved

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of the recovered salary amount for the period 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017

The court proceeded on the principle of quantum meruit and administrative fairness, implying that an employee is entitled to wages for the period they have actually performed duties for the department

The court relied on the principle that if the employer accepted a specific DOB and allowed the employee to continue in service until the age of superannuation based on that record, they cannot arbitrarily deny retiral benefits or recover salary for work already performed without a reasoned order

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had originally accepted the 1957 DOB and permitted the applicant to work until 31.12.2017

While the department identified a discrepancy in 2013, they failed to conclude the rectification process before the applicant’s retirement

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant performed his duties during the disputed period (01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017), the recovery of salary from his pensionary benefits required a formal legal justification

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the DOB discrepancy, the Tribunal focused on the procedural impropriety of recovering wages for work rendered without passing a speaking order

The court ordered the respondents to pass a "speaking and reasoned order" regarding the release of the salary for the period the applicant worked (01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017) in accordance with applicable laws and rules

This order must be passed within three weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment

No costs were awarded