Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1177 (PAT)

Ram Badan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-11-17

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in order, as contained in Annexure 2, the Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, directed for making correction in the date of birth of the petitioner in his service book from 3-2-1940 to 3-2-1942, and, accordingly, direction was given to enter the corrected date of birth, in the service book of the petitioner. 3. The order, as contained in Annexure 2, however, was not given effect to and in the meantime, the petitioner retired on 1-5-1998, whereas as per Annexure 2 he could have retired on 28-2-2000. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner again moved the Director General of Police, Government of Bihar and the Director General of Police vide order, as contained in Annexure 2, directed that since the petitioner has already superannuated, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner back in service. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner and similarly situated persons were given option to make a prayer for correction of their respective dates of birth, if the same have been recorded incorrectly, but at no pint of time, the petitioner made such a representation. From the order, as contained in Annexure 2, it appears that the Director General of Police considered the matter of the petitioner and being the highest authority in the hierarchy, directed that the date of birth of the petitioner is 3-2-1942 and as the order, as contained in Annexure 2, has not been rescinded by the State of Bihar nor it was challenged in any Court, the decision taken by the Director General of Police appears to be binding in nature. However, by now the petitioner has superannuated and even his date of birth taking to be true as 3-2-1942, he could have superannuated in the year 2000 itself. 6. In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct the authorities to reinstate him in service. However, the petitioner may be entitled for the consequential benefits for two years. 7. 6. In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct the authorities to reinstate him in service. However, the petitioner may be entitled for the consequential benefits for two years. 7. The petitioner, in that view of the matter, may make a representation before the Director General of Police to grant him the consequential monetary benefits and in case, any representation is filed, the same would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of its filing. 8. With the direction/observation as made above, this application is disposed of.