Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 600 (JHR)

Ram Japit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2010-05-14

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is against the impugned order of the respondents dated 31.5.2008 (Annexure-17) whereby, without considering the report submitted by the Bihar School Examination Board, the Respondent No.4 has declared that the petitioner's date of birth cannot be corrected. 3. From the admitted facts it appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Matriculate Constable in the year 1970. On the date of his entry in service, his age was recorded as 23 years. He was initially posted under the erstwhile State of Bihar, in the district of Bhojpur and later, his services were transferred to the State of Jharkhand. 4. It appears further that vide letter dated 29.5.2007 (Annexure-3), the Superintendent of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police Training Centre, Padma, Hazaribagh had directed the petitioner to produce his birth certificate which was required in order to assess the petitioner's age, since his service book was not being made available from the office where the petitioner was earlier posted in the State of Bihar. The petitioner produced his Matriculation Certificate claiming that he had passed his Matriculation Examination from Bihar School Examination Board in the year 1965. Not being satisfied with the certificate, the concerned authority of the respondents had sought to make a verification and for such purpose, had 'sought a report from the Bihar School Examination Board. It appears that even without receiving the report from the Bihar School Examination Board, the petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that he had attained the age of superannuation. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 6406k of 2007. While disposing of the writ application vide its order dated 24.4.2008, this Court had directed the concerned authorities of the respondents namely the Respondent No.4, to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on the report submitted by the Bihar School Examination Board with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 6. 6. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the Respondent No. 4 has passed the impugned order declaring inter alia, that no correction of the petitioner's date of birth can be made after ten years of the petitioner's induction in service, since such corrections are prohibited under the circulars issued by the State Government of Bihar. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved, has challenged the impugned order. 8. Assailing the impugned order, counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order appears to have been passed by misconceiving the directions contained in the order of this Court in the earlier writ application. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have wrongly construed the issue as the petitioner's claim for correction of his date of birth whereas the fact otherwise indicated is that the respondents were only required to assess the petitioner's age by reference to his date of birth on the basis of the report which was sought for and obtained• from the Bihar School Examination Board. The date of birth, which even the respondents have not disputed, as per the entries in the Matric41ation Certificate, is 7.7.1948. The respondents have wrongly refused to accept this date and to insist upon an imaginary date of 31.12.1947 which date, appears to have been introduced by another pen and in the handwriting of some person other than the petitioner himself, in his service records. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would argue that the petitioner's grievance is essentially in respect of his claim for correction of his date of birth. This inference is on account of the fact that in his service records, which was subsequently obtained, his date of birth was mentioned as 31.12.1947 and treating the same as his admitted date of birth, his date of superannuation was assessed and therefore he was made to superannuate •even though such date of superannuation may have occasioned prior to the receipt of the report from the Bihar School Examination Board. 10. The plea taken and the explanation offered by the respondents does not appear to be in consonance with the directions contained in the order of this Court in the earlier writ application. As it ap. pears, admittedly the petitioner had disputed the respondents' action in informing him that he would superannuate on a premature date. 11. 10. The plea taken and the explanation offered by the respondents does not appear to be in consonance with the directions contained in the order of this Court in the earlier writ application. As it ap. pears, admittedly the petitioner had disputed the respondents' action in informing him that he would superannuate on a premature date. 11. As pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, in the counter affidavit of the respondents in the earlier writ application, it was acknowledged by the respondents that even before receiving the report from Bihar School Examination Board regarding the date of birth of the petitioner, the order of the petitioner's superannuation was passed. It was only after considering these aspects of the petitioner's case that this Court had directed the respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on the basis of the report submitted by the Bihar School Examination Board. Under such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the report and take an appropriate decision accordingly. It may be noted that the petitioner had never raised any dispute claiming correction of his date of birth and neither was any such occasion available to the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner's grievance as his claim for correction of his date of birth. As pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have not disputed the entry of the petitioner's date of birth as mentioned in his Matriculation Certificate. If this be so, then there is no reason why the date of birth as reflected in the petitioner's Matriculation Certificate should not have been accepted as the correct date and the date of his superannuation computed and assessed accordingly. 12. In the light of the above discussions and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in this application and accordingly the same is allowed. The impugned order of the Respondent No.4 vide Annexure-17 is hereby set aside. Since the petitioner has by now attained the age of superannuation, the concerned authorities of the respondents shall assess the benefits, including the monetary benefits, which would have accrued to the petitioner had he been allowed to continue in service till the date of his superannuation as per his date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate. Since the petitioner has by now attained the age of superannuation, the concerned authorities of the respondents shall assess the benefits, including the monetary benefits, which would have accrued to the petitioner had he been allowed to continue in service till the date of his superannuation as per his date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate. The amount so assessed, shall be paid to the petitioner by the concerned authorities of the respondents within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent State.