Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1071 (PAT)

Shiva Nath Ram v. State Of Bihar

2007-07-04

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. The petitioner joined police service on 23.01.1962. He was not a matriculate but he gave his year of birth as 1942. Accordingly, he was to retire in 30.06.2000. It appears that during service in 1969, the petitioner gave his matriculation examination and passed. On the basis of being a matriculate, he availed various benefits including promotional benefits. Six months prior to his scheduled retirement, he was not noticed about his superannuation at that stage after having served for 38 years. He represents to challenge of his date of birth on basis of the matriculation certificate. He now wants that his date of birth should be 13.02.1944. The effect thereof would be extending his service by another 2 years. Nothing has been brought on record. It is clear that at any point of time from 1969 to year 2000, he had not made any representation for correction of his date of birth. This is coming for the first time on the eve of his retirement though the entry in the service record right from the beginning is of the year 1942. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of superannuating him with effect from 30.06.2000 and submits that he ought to have been superannuated with effect from 30.06.2002. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State,, this application is being disposed of it the stage of admission itself. 4. In view of the facts aforesaid, it is clear that for 38 years, the petitioner made to grievance with regard to his date of The matriculation examination he assed after he was in service where he ad disclosed his year of birth as 1942. having challenged his date of birth for the purpose of matriculation examination, he and not take steps to get the same cor- 5. In my view, it is too late after 38 ars to permit a person to challenge the date of birth only to extension of service by two years. Therefore, I find no merit in this writ application. 6. However, it is submitted that if the date of birth as recorded in the service book, is taken then there is no mention of the date or month therein. He mentioned only of the year and in view of earlier Division Bench Judgement of this court reported in 2002(1) PLJR page 228 (State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. 6. However, it is submitted that if the date of birth as recorded in the service book, is taken then there is no mention of the date or month therein. He mentioned only of the year and in view of earlier Division Bench Judgement of this court reported in 2002(1) PLJR page 228 (State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bharat Singh @ Bharat Rao)- Annexure-12, his retirement would be the last day of the year corresponding, therefore, he could not be made to retire on 30.06.2000 but ought to have been retired only with effect from 31.12.2000. 7. In my view, this submission is accepted. The stand of the State was that the year of birth was shown as 1942 and if that be so in view of the Division Bench aforesaid he was retired on 31 December 2000 and not early. This writ application is allowed to the limited extent above and the respondents are directed to recalculate the services and post service dues accordingly.