Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1399 (PAT)

Sohmati Devi v. State Of Bihar

2002-12-10

NARAYAN ROY

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 2. Date of birth of the husband of the petitioner is in dispute. According to the case of the petitioner, the date of birth of her husband as recorded in service book is 15.12.1939 and he entered into service under the respondents on 24.11.1967 on the post of chowkidar. It is further case of the petitioner that according to the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner entered in the service book, he could have superannuated w.e.f. 31st December, 1999 but on the contrary he was asked to superannuate w.e.f. 1.7.1994. It is also the case of the petitioner that vide order as contained in Annexure 1 the husband of the petitioner was served with a notice showing that he will be deemed to have superannuated w.e.f. 1.7.1999 though the notice dated 16.8.1999 was served on him on that day and the husband of the petitioner continued to work under the respondents till 16th August, 1999. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that in the service book certain interpolations were detected by the authorities and, therefore, the same was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and the Forensic Science Laboratory, on examination of service book, reported vide Annexure B to the counter affidavit that certain interpolations have been made in the service book by making 1934 as 1939 and on that basis the respondent-board directed the husband of the petitioner that he will be deemed to have superannuated w.e.f. 1.7.1994. Mr. Mr. Dutt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), with reference to the counter affidavit, submitted that firstly in view of the entry made in the service book about the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner as 1939, an order was issued from Personnel department of the respondent board and information was sent to the husband of the petitioner that he superannuated w.e.f. 1.7.1999 and only when the retiral dues were being calculated for necessary payment, the interpolation in the service book was detected and ultimately it was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and consequent upon the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as referred to above, another office order was issued vide order as contained in Annexure 1/A informing the husband of the petitioner that according to his date of birth i.e. 1934 he superannuated w.e.f. 1.7.1994. 4. Extract of the service book has been brought on record and even the original service book has been placed before me for my perusal. If the service book is viewed with a naked eyes, it would appear that the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner was entered as 1939 and thereafter the same was made as 15.12.1939. It appears that the husband of the petitioner, at the time of entry in service in the year 1967, was illiterate and what he disclosed was accepted to be his year of birth. The subsequent interpolation, if any, therefore, cannot be said to be attributable to the husband of the petitioner as he was illiterate but the possibility of getting it done, however, at the same time cannot be ruled out. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the correctness or otherwise of the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner was scrutinised at earlier occasions and for all practical purposes his date of birth was accepted as 15.12.1939. In this connection, learned counsel has referred Annexures 3, 5 and 6. It is true that in subsequent documents as contained in Annexures 3, 5 and 6 the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner has been shown as 15.12.1939 but the entry made in the service book will prevail upon all the documents and for aii practical purposes the date of birth as entered in the service book should be accepted. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the board submits that initial date of birth of the husband of the petitioner was 1934 which was made 1939 and subsequently in different ink it was written as 15.12.1939. 6. The question now arises as to whether the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner even if it was doubted, could have been determined solely on the basis of report of Forensic Science Laboratory that also in absentia of the husband of the petitioner. From the materials on record and from the contents of the counter affidavit, it is manifest that the authorities determined the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner as 1934 on the basis of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is also manifest that even after receipt of the report from Forensic Science Laboratory no opportunity of hearing was given to the husband of the petitioner nor he was asked to explain as to what is his date of birth. The principles of audi alteram partem, in my opinion, will apply in these cases and date of birth of the husband of the petitioner could not have been determined or changed without applying the same. On the face of the materials on record, it appears to be a case where the authorities nave acted without following the principles of natural justice. From the materials on record now it appears that even assuming that the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner was 15.12.1939, he court have retired according to his case, on 31.12.1999. In any view of the matter, by now the husband of the petitioner stands superannuated and no fruitful object will be achieved by setting aside the orders impugned. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that husband of the petitioner appears to have worked under the respondent board till 16th August, 1999 which will be evident from Annexure 1 and the petitioner would be entitled for the remuneration of her deceased husband for the period he worked under the respondents though she has legitimate expectation that her deceased husband would be retiring w.e.f. 31.12.1999. 7. 7. In this view of the matter, respondent authorities are directed to calculate the remuneration of the deceased husband of the petitioner till 16th August, 1999 and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner will be given to the petitioner in accordance with law in the light of this order. 8. With this direction/observation, this application is disposed of.