Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 524 (JHR)

Muzaffar Hussain v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-07-19

M.Y.EQBAL

body2005
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in letter dated 18.9.2004 issued by Director, Directorate of Land Records and Measurement directing the Settlement Officer, Ranchi to treat the date of appointment of the petitioner as 3.8.1964 and as such to make him superannuate on completion of 40 years of service w.e.f 2.8.2004 and to pay him retiral benefits. 2. Petitioners case is that he was appointed and joined the post of Mohariar on 3.6.1964 at Muzaffarpur. In 1971 he was transferred to Gaya but due to illness he could not join at Gaya and as such he was put under suspension and thereafter he was discharged from his service. After about six years the petitioner was again appointed on the post of Mohariar at Muzaffarpur. It is stated by the petitioner that he continuously worked to the satisfaction of all concerned. In 1996 a gradation list was published wherein the petitioners name was mentioned at Serial No. 376 showing his date of birth as 10.6.1952 and date of appointment as 27.10.1977. Petitioner was thereafter transferred to Palamau in the year 1999 and then from Palamau to Ranchi vide Notification dated 31.12.2003 and he was placed at the Headquarters at Ranchi. While working at Ranchi impugned letter was issued by Director by his letter dated 18.9.2004 directing the settlement Officer, Ranchi to superannuate the petitioner on completion of 40 years of service. 3. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel drawn my attention to Rules 54 and 73 of the Bihar Service Code and submitted that Rule 54 only fixes upper age limit for appointment for the pensionable Government service and not for any other purpose and Rule 73 of the Code fixes only the age of retirement. Learned Counsel drawn my attention to the Gradation List and also the copy of the Service Book annexed with the counter- affidavit and submitted that writ petitioner was given fresh appointment in 1977 and as such by no stretch of imagination he has worked for 40 years. Learned Counsel submitted that after completing 10 years of service from 1977 petitioner was given first time bound promotion. 4. Respondents in their counter-affidavit have not disputed the date of birth of the petitioner which has been recoded as 10.6.1952. Learned Counsel submitted that after completing 10 years of service from 1977 petitioner was given first time bound promotion. 4. Respondents in their counter-affidavit have not disputed the date of birth of the petitioner which has been recoded as 10.6.1952. Respondents case is that on the basis of joining the service on 3.8.1964 petitioner completed 40 years of service. It is stated that the petitioner was asked many times to produce the Educational Certificates for verification of date of birth but inspite of various reminders he failed to produce Educational Certificates before the respondents. It is contended that if the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.6.1952 then he joined the service at the age of 12 years which is not possible. 5. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was Initially appointed in 1964 but because of his illness he could not join at Gaya and he was put under suspension and thereafter he was discharged from his service in 1971. After six years petitioner was given fresh appointment which is evident from the copy of the service record filed by the respondents as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. The extract as appears in the Service Book reads as under : "Nideshak, Bhu-abhilekh tatha parimap Bihar Patna ke Patrank 17-161/ 75-15 di. 17.10.77 ke nideshanusar Shri Muzaffar Hussain, sevamukt DPM ko punah dinak 27.10.77 se DPM ke pad par vetanman 205.3.226 Da. Ro-4-284 ke vetanman me niyukti ki jati hai. Ise nayee niyukti samjhi jayegi. Yen niyukti bilkul asthai hai aur bina karan bataye kisi bhi samay inki seva samapt kar di ja sakti hai." (Emphasis given) 6. From bare perusal of the aforesaid extract, it is manifest that the petitioner was given fresh appointment in 1977 which is also evident from Gradation List wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 10.6.1952 and date of appointment as 27.10.1977. 7. Admittedly, from 1977 the petitioner has not completed 40 years of service. Even if his date of appointment is taken as 1964 he was out of service from 1971 to 1977 i.e., about six years. In other words, petitioner was in the service for six years from 1964 to 1971 and thereafter 27 years from 1977 to 2004. Even then the petitioner has not completed 40 years of service. Even if his date of appointment is taken as 1964 he was out of service from 1971 to 1977 i.e., about six years. In other words, petitioner was in the service for six years from 1964 to 1971 and thereafter 27 years from 1977 to 2004. Even then the petitioner has not completed 40 years of service. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned letter of Director directing the Settlement Officer, Ranchi to superannuate the petitioner on completion of 40 years of service is arbitrary and without any basis. By no stretch of imagination petitioners service shall be counted as continuous service from 1964 in order to superannuate him after completion of 40 years in 2004. 8. For the aforesaid reason, this writ petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. It is held that petitioner is entitled to remain in service for complete period 40 years before he is asked to superannuate from service.