Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 527 (GAU)

Jafaruddin Ahmed v. State of Assam

2004-09-17

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2004
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. CASE OF THE PETITIONER 1. The Petitioner read upto class X and consequently appeared in the matriculation test examination held in the year 1961 as a private candidate from Government Gordon H.S. School, Nalbari. As per school certificate his date of birth is 1.1.1944. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard on 9.7.1963 in the then undivided Forest Department which included the present Soil Conservation Department. Riding a ladder of promotion, the Petitioner became Senior Soil Conservation Demonstrator in the year 1983 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 1.1.2002. 3. On 4.6.1999, while in service, the Petitioner was informed in writing by the departmental authorities that his date of retirement on superannuation would be on 13.6.2000/30.6.2000 as per records available in the office. The Petitioner was asked to submit formal application in the prescribed form for processing payment of pension/gratuity etc. 4. On receipt of the said intimation, the Petitioner submitted an application on 19.7.1999 alongwith the school certificate dated 5.7.1999 stating that his date of retirement should be 31.12.2001 instead of 13.6.2000. His application was received by his controlling officer and was sent to the Divisional Office, Soil Conservation, Nalbari vide letter dated 20.7.1999. 5. On 30.6.2000, which was the date of retirement of the Petitioner, the Director of Soil Conservation by his letter issued on that day informed the Divisional Officer, Soil Conservation Division, Nalbari, that the date of birth of the Petitioner should be 1.1.1944 instead of 13.6.1942 as recorded in the service roll and as such his date of retirement from service would be 1.1.2002. However, by issuing a corrigendum dated 15.7.2000 the date "1.1.2002" was corrected as "31.12.2001". 6. As per the aforesaid direction of the Director of Soil Conservation, Assam, the date of birth of the Petitioner as recorded in the service roll was corrected by the Divisional Officer, Nalbari Soil Conservation Division. The Petitioner continued in service on that basis beyond 30.6.2000 and retired from service with effect from 31.12.2001. He was given due intimation regarding his such retirement on attaining the age of superannuation and was asked to submit dully filled in application in the prescribed form for payment of pension/gratuity etc. The Director furnished the pension papers of the Petitioner to the Accountant General, Assam. He was given due intimation regarding his such retirement on attaining the age of superannuation and was asked to submit dully filled in application in the prescribed form for payment of pension/gratuity etc. The Director furnished the pension papers of the Petitioner to the Accountant General, Assam. However, the office of the Accountant General by their communication dated 22.3.2002 took objection to the continuation of the Petitioner in service beyond 30.6.2000 as the change of the date of birth was not in accordance with SR 8 of the FR/SR. By the said communication, the salary drawn by the Petitioner beyond 30.6.2000 for the period from 1.7.2000 to 31.12.2001 was directed to be assessed for recovery from the pensionary benefits of the Petitioner or to regularize the said period by way of reemployment with necessary approval. 7. In response to the said letter dated 22.3.2002, the Divisional Officer by his communication dated 5.6.2002 forwarded a copy of the letter dated 30.6.2000 by which the date of birth of the Petitioner as recorded in the service roll was directed to be corrected and also indicating the amount which was drawn by the Petitioner for the aforesaid period from 1.7.2000 to 31.12.2001. By a further communication dated 21.6.2002, the Director of Soil Conservation requested the Accountant General, Assam to take necessary action in the pension case of the Petitioner re-submitting the pension paper showing the amount of pay and allowances which was drawn by the Petitioner for the aforesaid period from 1.7.2000 to 31.12.2001. Thereafter, the office of the Accountant General by their letter dated 13.8.2002 forwarded the pension payment order alongwith statements of Govt. dues to be recovered to the Treasury Officer, Nalbari directing him to deduct an amount of Rs. 1,65,828/-. 8. It is the case of the Petitioner that he continued in his service beyond 30.6.2000 as per the correction made by the Director relating to his date of birth and as such there is no question of making recovery from his retirement benefits. However, at the same time it is also the stand of the Petitioner as taken in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that he continued in his service beyond 30.6.2000 due to inadvertence, without, however, any malafide intention. It was the responsibility of the department to intimate him about his correct date of retirement. 9. However, at the same time it is also the stand of the Petitioner as taken in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that he continued in his service beyond 30.6.2000 due to inadvertence, without, however, any malafide intention. It was the responsibility of the department to intimate him about his correct date of retirement. 9. The prayer made in the writ petition is to set aside and quash the aforesaid letters dated 22.3.2002 and 13.8.2002 and to regularize the period of over stay from 1.7.2000 to 31.12.2001 and to grant him pensionary benefit on that basis. 10. Mr. R.P. Sarma, learned Advocate for the Petitioner made submissions in the aforesaid back ground of the case urging for granting the relief as prayed for in the writ petition. STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS 11. Although no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondents. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel, upon instruction as was directed to be obtained by this Court, submitted that the correction of the date of birth in service roll of the Petitioner on the last date of his retirement on 30.6.2000 was unauthorized and was in violation of SR 8 of the FR/SR. She submitted that the Petitioner could not have at the fag end of his service career prayed for alteration of his date of birth and simultaneously the Director of Soil Conservation also could not have and ought not to have acceded to request thereof made by the Petitioner granting him extra benefits of service for 11/2 years. She produced the Government letter dated 17.7.2004 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Soil Conservation Department intimating about the irregular and unauthorized alteration of the date of birth of the Petitioner in his service book and the decision to recover the access amount drawn by the Petitioner during the period of overstay. Ms. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel produced the records including the service book of the Petitioner. DECISION 12. In the service book, the date of birth of the Petitioner was originally recorded as 13.6.1942. The service book was opened on 25.3.65 and the Petitioner as a token of acceptance of the entries made including the said date of birth put his signature and thumb impressions. It was on that basis, his date of retirement was calculated to be 13.6.2000/30.6.2000 and he was given due intimation relating to the same asking him to submit pension paper etc. It was on that basis, his date of retirement was calculated to be 13.6.2000/30.6.2000 and he was given due intimation relating to the same asking him to submit pension paper etc. The Petitioner by his representation dated 19.7.1999 intimated the Divisional Officer that as per the school certificate his date of retirement was 31.12.2001. Alongwith the said representation, the Petitioner had also submitted a school certificate issued on 5.7.1999 by the principal of the school certifying his date of birth as 1.1.1944. The Director of Soil Conservation on the basis of such representation made by the Petitioner obliged him by issuing a letter dated 30.6.2000, which incidentally was the last date of service of the Petitioner, to the Divisional Officer that the date of birth of the Petitioner should be 1.1.1944 and as such necessary correction should be carried out in the service roll/service book of the Petitioner. The service book reveals that the Divisional Officer by his entry in the service book as "01.01.1944 vide DSC's letter No. PRF 672/2000-01/2947 dated 30.6.2000 - Sd/- (illegible) 0/07/2000", after encircling the original entry "13.6.42" and putting a line over it altered the date of birth of the Petitioner after his date of retirement on 30.6.2004. 13. From the aforesaid endorsement in the service book of the Petitioner it is apparent that the correction relating to the date of birth was carried about by the Divisional Officer on the basis of the letter dated 30.6.2000 issued by the Director to him to make necessary correction in the service book regarding the date of birth of the Petitioner as 1.1.1944 as per the school certificate produced by the Petitioner which was dated 5.7.1999. 14. As per provisions of SR 8(c) it is the Commissioner and Head of Departments who are empowered to alter the recorded date of birth in the case of non gazetted Government servant, provided they are satisfied, after enquiry, that the previous date was incorrect. As per the Note appended to SR 8(c), the Head of the office should record the date of birth in the service book of a non-gazetted government servant on his initial appointment with reference to the matriculation of equivalent certificate and no alteration in the date of birth of a government servant should be allowed except in very rare cases, where a manifest mistake has been made. The note further requires that such mistake should be rectified at the earliest opportunity and that in no case request for change in the date of birth of a government servant made on a date within 3 years from the date of his actual superannuation should be entertained. 15. It is an admitted position that the original date of birth recorded in the service book of the Petitioner is 13.6.1942 and on that basis the date of retirement of the Petitioner fell on 13.6.2000/30.6.2000. The Petitioner was given due intimation. However, he by his representation dated 19.7.1999 disputed such date of retirement rejecting the same to be 31.12.2001 and in support of such a claim produced a school certificate issued on 5.7.1999, after 36 years of entering the services of the department. His original date of birth recorded in the service book i.e. 13.6.1942" could not have been without any basis. The Petitioner must have produced school certificate recording his age and date of birth. It was on that basis his date of birth was recorded in the service book which was duly accepted by the Petitioner by putting his signature and thumb impression. The service roll was prepared on 25.3.1965. After 36 years of entering the service and 34 years of preparing the service roll, the Petitioner at the fag end of his service career could not have represented for alteration of his date of birth. 16. The role played by the Director in the matter was unbecoming of a Head of Department. Where the requirement of SR 8(c) is that no alteration in the date of birth should be allowed except in very rare cases where a manifest mistake has been made and that in no case request for a change in the date of birth of a government servant made within 3 years of his actual superannuation, should be entertained and also that such change can only be made upon satisfaction after enquiry that the previous date was incorrect, the Director readily agreed to the request of the Petitioner without following the aforesaid provisions of SR 8(c) and the note appended thereto. He did so on the last date of service of the Petitioner by writing a letter to the Divisional Officer, who in turn altered the date of birth of the Petitioner in the service book providing 11/2 years of more service to the Petitioner. He did so on the last date of service of the Petitioner by writing a letter to the Divisional Officer, who in turn altered the date of birth of the Petitioner in the service book providing 11/2 years of more service to the Petitioner. Such a course of action adopted for alteration of the date of birth was not at all permissible and was totally unauthorized more so when the request was made by the Petitioner within 3 years of his superannuation. In fact he made the request on 19.7.1999 which was 11 months ahead of his date of retirement as per the original date of birth recorded in the service book. 17. As per the information furnished by the learned Government Advocate, the Director of Soil Conservation is the Head of Department. Thus there is no dispute relating to his jurisdiction and authority to exercise his powers under SR 8 (c). However, he could not have ordered for change of date of birth on two counts viz. (1) the inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner to make the request for alteration of the date of birth (36 years), without raising any grievance during this long period and (2) as per the provisions of SR 8, the said Director could not have entertained the request same being within three years of his actual superannuation and that too without making any enquiry and finding out and detection of any manifest mistake. The procedure adopted by the Director towards changing of the date of birth of the Petitioner was in total violation of the established rules. It is in this context the general proposition relating to such a procedure to be followed is that if a thing is required to be done in a particular way it should be done in that way. This general principle has been stated illuminatingly in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor and later by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh as reported in AIR 1936 PC 253 and AIR 1964 SC 358 respectively. This being the position of fact as well as law, the correction made by the Director is certainly not binding on the Government and if that be so, the Petitioner was to retire from service on the basis of the earlier date of birth recorded in the service book which was 13.6.42. This being the position of fact as well as law, the correction made by the Director is certainly not binding on the Government and if that be so, the Petitioner was to retire from service on the basis of the earlier date of birth recorded in the service book which was 13.6.42. On that basis his date of retirement fell on 13.6.2000/- 30.6.2000, which was duly notified. 18. In the case of Union of India v. C. Ramaswamy as reported in AIR 1997 SC 2055 , the Apex Court held that it will not be unreasonable to presume that when a candidate, at the first instance, communicates a particular date of birth there is obviously his intention that his age calculated on the basis of that date of birth should be taken into consideration by the appointing authority for adjudging his suitability for a responsible office. The Apex Court in that case held that the principle of estoppel would apply and the authorities concerned would be justified in declining to alter the date of birth. The Apex Court emphasised that such mistake must be bonafide resulting in wrong recording of date of birth at the time of appointment. Same is not the case here. The Petitioner upon declaration of his date of birth as 13.6.42 got employment under the Respondents and got the same corrected through an unauthorized procedure. In this connection the observations of the Apex Court in paragraphs 25 and 26 are quoted below: 25. In matters relating to appointment to service various factors are taken into consideration before making a selection or an appointment. One of the relevant circumstances is the age of the person who is sought to be appointed. It may not be possible to conclusively prove that an advantage had been gained by representing a date of birth which is different than that which is later sought to be incorporated. But it will not be unreasonable to presume that when a candidate, at the first instance, communicates a particular date of birth there is obviously his intention that his age calculated on the basis of that date of birth should be taken into consideration by the appointing for adjudging his suitability for a responsible office. In fact, where maturity is a relevant factor to assess suitability, an older person is ordinarily considered to be more mature and, therefore, more suitable. In fact, where maturity is a relevant factor to assess suitability, an older person is ordinarily considered to be more mature and, therefore, more suitable. In such a case, it cannot be said that advantage is not obtained by a person because of an earlier date of birth, if he subsequently claims to be younger in age, after taking that advantage. In such a situation, it would be against public policy to permit such a change to enable longer benefit to the person concerned. This being so, we find if difficulty to accept the broad proposition that the principle of estoppel would not apply in such a case where the age of a person who is sought to be appointed may be a relevant consideration to assess his suitability. 26. In such a case, even in the absence of a statutory Rule like Rule 16-A the principle of estoppel would apply and the authorities concerned would be justified in declining to alter the date of birth. If such a decision is challenged the court also ought not to grant any relief even if it is shown that the date of birth, as ordinarily recorded, was incorrect because the candidate concerned had represented a different date of birth to be taken into consideration obviously with a view that would be to his advantage. Once having secured entry into the service, possibly in preference to other candidates, then the principle of estoppel would clearly be applicable and relief of change of date of birth can be legitimately denied. 19. In the case of G.M. Bharat Cooking Cole v. Shib Kumar as reported in (2000) 8 SCC 696 , the Apex Court exclusively quoted the observations of its earlier decision in Bum Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar as reported in (1995) 4 SCC 172 and observed in Para-17 of the judgment as follows: 17. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal and reject the writ application of Respondent 1 filed in the High Court. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar as reported in (1995) 4 SCC 172 and observed in Para-17 of the judgment as follows: 17. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal and reject the writ application of Respondent 1 filed in the High Court. Since Respondent 1 had continued in service of Appellant 1 beyond 25.4.1991, the date of his superannuation on the basis of his declared age entered in his "Service and Leave Record" because of the judgment and order of the High Court, now set aside, he shall not be entitled to any service benefits other than the salary drawn by him for the period beyond 25.4.1991. 20. In the case of State of U.P. v. Gulaichi as reported in (2003) 6 SCC 483 , the Apex Court made the following observations placing reliance on the case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka as reported in (1970) 3 SCC 624 . 7. Usually, no interference is called for when findings of fact are recorded by the trial/appellate courts and the High Court, more so, when the issue is decided in second appeal. But where the courts below lose sight of statutory provisions or act on irrelevant or inadmissible materials, and ignore relevant materials, interference is not impermissible. 8. Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is same as the date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service-book relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. But, of late a trend can be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of their retirement raise a dispute about their records, by either invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or by filing applications before the Administrative Tribunals concerned, or even filing suits for adjudication as to whether the dates of birth recorded were correct or not. 9. 9. Most of the States have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth in the service record is to be dealt with and what procedure is to be followed. In many such rules a period has been prescribed within which if any public servant makes any grievance in respect of error in the recording of his date of birth, the application for that purpose can be entertained, the sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades, especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. In the case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka (1970) 3 SCC 624 . this Court said (at SCC pp 625-26, paragraph 4) that the date of compulsory retirement "must in out judgment, be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the Respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected consistently with the appropriate procedure." In the case of Govt. of A.P. v. M. Hayagreev Sarma (1990) 2 SCC 682 the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 were considered. The public servant concerned had claimed correction of his date of birth with reference to the births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal corrected the date of birth as claimed by the Petitioner before the Tribunal, in view of the entry in the births-and-deaths register ignoring the Rules framed by the State Government referred to above. It was inter alia observed by this Court: (SCC p. 685, paragraph 7) The object underlying Rule 4 is to avoid repeated applications by a government employee for the correction of his date of birth and with that end in view it provides that a government servant whose date of birth may have been recorded in the service register in accordance with the rules applicable to him and if that entry had become final under the rules prior to the commencement of 1984 Rules, he will not be entitled for alteration of his date of birth. In Executive Engineer v. Rangadhar Mallik 1993 Supp (1) SCC 763, Rule 65 of the Orissa General Finance Rules was examined which provides that representation made for correction of date of birth near about the time of superannuation shall not be entertained. The Respondent in that case was appointed on 16.11.1968. On 9.9.1986, for the first time, he made a representation for changing his date of birth in his service register. The Tribunal issued a direction as sought for by the Respondent. This Court set aside the order of the Tribunal saying that the claim of the Respondent that his date of birth was 27.11.1938 instead of 27.11.1928 should not have been accepted on the basis of the documents produced in support of the said Respondent at the time of his appointment and he had also put his signature in the service roll accepting his date of birth as 27.11.1928. The said Respondent did not taken any step nor made any representation for correcting his date of birth till 9.9.1986. In the case of Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993) 2 SCC 162 , the position in law was again reiterated and it was observed (SCC p. 167, paragraph 7). 7. A government servant who had declared his age at the initial state of the employment is of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the courts, Tribunals or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, in as much as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, in as much as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some case for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may also lose the promotion forever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an important and relevant aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the Respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that their has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of the date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service-book. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service-book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servant to approach the court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service-books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused injustice to his immediate junior. 21. In the case of State of Tamilnadu v. T.V. Venugopalan as reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 , the Apex Court once again emphasized that the inordinate delay in making the application for correction of date of birth itself a ground for rejecting the correction of the date of birth. It went on to say that the Government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. 22. In the instant case, the Petitioner entered the service of the Respondents way back in 1963 and got the date of birth recorded as 13.6.1942 and never made any grievance against the same. It was only upon intimation in 1999 by the departmental authority relating to his date of superannuation asking him to submit his pension papers, the Petitioner after 36 years of entering service made representation for change of date of birth. It was only upon intimation in 1999 by the departmental authority relating to his date of superannuation asking him to submit his pension papers, the Petitioner after 36 years of entering service made representation for change of date of birth. The fatal effect of delay in seeking correction of recorded date of birth in the service book has been reiterated in the case of Chief Medical Officer v. Khadeer Khadri as reported in (1995) 2 SCC 82 and Union of India v. R.S. Sarma as reported in (1996) 7 SCC 421 . 23. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Khalique Laskar v. All Assam Public Health Employees Association as reported in (2003) 2 GLT 241 referring to the aforesaid provisions of SR 8 as per which no request for change of date of birth is to be entertained within the period of 3 years before the original date of superannuation, held the change made to be illegal and affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka (supra), the Apex Court held that the date of compulsory retirement under FR 56(a) must be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the Respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected consistent with the appropriate procedure. (emphasis supplied). 24. Having noticed the aforesaid factual as well as legal aspect of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the Petitioner was not entitled to continue in service beyond 30.6.2000. The correction made in the service book by the Divisional Officer on the basis of the direction made by the Director being unauthorized, the Petitioner cannot get the benefit of service beyond 30.6.2000, except the salary and other allowances he had already drawn. The Respondents allowed the Petitioner to continue in his service upto 31.12.2001 on the basis of correction made in the service book although unauthorized. In such a situation, there is no question of denial of the benefits such as salary and allowances which the Petitioner has already drawn. However, the period from, 1.7.2000 to 31.12.2001 shall not be counted for any other purpose and retirement benefits and the Petitioner would be entitled to such benefits taking his date of retirement from service as 13.6.2000/30.6.2000. In such a situation, there is no question of denial of the benefits such as salary and allowances which the Petitioner has already drawn. However, the period from, 1.7.2000 to 31.12.2001 shall not be counted for any other purpose and retirement benefits and the Petitioner would be entitled to such benefits taking his date of retirement from service as 13.6.2000/30.6.2000. The correction made relating to his original date of birth recorded in the service book being without jurisdiction and authority is inconsequential. 25. In the instant case, the writ Petitioner continued in his service beyond the age of superannuation for a period of 11/2 years due to the unauthorized action on the part of the Director. The said Director acted beyond his competence, jurisdiction and in complete violation of the rules for change of date of birth of the Petitioner at the fag end of his service career. His such unauthorized action has resulted in the present situation. In such circumstances it will be open for the competent authority of the State Government to take action against the said Director in accordance with law, if so advised, to make good the loss suffered by the State by way of payment of salary and allowances to the Petitioner for the aforesaid extended period of service. 26. The Petitioner shall be paid his pensionary and other retirement benefits consistently with the direction made above. All the formalities towards finalization of the pensionary benefits payable to the Petitioner taking his date of retirement as 13.6.2000/30.6.2000 shall be carried out within a period of two moths from the date of furnishing a certified copy of this judgment and order. 27. Writ petition partly succeeds. There shall be no order as to costs.