Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 595 (JHR)

Bijoy Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2001-08-24

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order No. 482 dated 18.9.99 purported to have been issued by the Deputy Director of Accounts, whereby while taking the date of superannuation of the petitioner as 31.5.97. the said authority has also taken a decision for recovery of the excess amount paid to him. 3. The petitioner retired as line man in 1997 taking his date of birth as 1937. After retirement all the retrial dues were paid to him. It appears that 1997. after enquiry it was found that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 16.5.1931 and not 15.6.1937. 4. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the service book as Annexure 2 to the writ application in support of his case that his date of birth was recorded as 15.6.1937. In the affidavit the petitioner has stated that Annexure 2 is the Photocopy of the original. In course of argument Mr. Jha. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, produced before me the original service book of the petitioner. According to the Board in the first part of the service book the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 16.5.31 but in 1993 by interpolation the year of the date of birth has been changed to 1937 from 1931. From perusal of the service book it does not appear from nacked eye that the year of date of birth of the petitioner has been changed from 1931 to 1937. Of course, when the service book was opened in 1993, there was no occasion to make any endorsement by any of the officers in 1993 against the entry in the column of date of birth. 5. Be that as it may from the original service book even if the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 16.5.37 or 16.5.31. I fall to understand as to from which service book the petitioner has got the photocopy wherein the date of birth has been shown as 15.6.37. in other words from the photocopy of the service book annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ application the date of birth of the petitioner appear to be 16.5.37/1931. 6. I fall to understand as to from which service book the petitioner has got the photocopy wherein the date of birth has been shown as 15.6.37. in other words from the photocopy of the service book annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ application the date of birth of the petitioner appear to be 16.5.37/1931. 6. In such situation the question with regard to the actual date of birth of the petitioner becomes a disputed question of fact I am, therefore, not supposed to adjudicate as to which date of birth of the petitioner is correct. At the same time it has not been disputed by Mr. Jha. counsel for the Board, that the impugned letter, Annexure 6 was issued whereby a decision was taken to change the date of birth of the petitioner as 1931 without giving notice to show cause or opportunity of hearing. 7. In that view of the matter, also the matter needs re- consideration by the Board after giving a show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the Board, submitted that the Secretary is the Competent Authority to take final decision in the matter. 8. For all these reasons, the impugned order as contained in Annexure 6 is quashed and the Secretary of the Board is directed to pass fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In order to avoid unnecessary delay the petitioner shall appear before the Secretary along with a copy of the order within two weeks from today and file a detailed representation along with the supporting documents in connection with his date of birth. The Secretary shall dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order within six weeks from the date of filing of the representation. This application is thus disposed of. 9. Appeal disposed of.