Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1270 (JHR)

Bachchu Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-25

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
Order Heard counsel for the appellant as well as the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed in Civil Review No. 102/2004 dated 16th April 2010, whereunder the learned Single Judge did not find any apparent error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being WPS No. 100/2002. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition is annexed as Annexure-4 to the present appeal. 3. The background for this appellant to move before the learned Single Judge was issuance of a District Order No. 1593/01 circulated vide Memo No. 3985 dated 04th December 2001, whereunder the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh had held that the petitioner was liable to retire with effect from 31st July 1999, as also it was ordered that the excess amount paid to him towards salary, shall be deducted from his retiral benefits. Learned Single Judge in the writ petition, found that on the petitioner's representation, his date of birth was mentioned as 24th July 1942, but subsequently, he produced School Leaving Certificate wherein it was shown as 24th July 1945. 4. In the aforesaid background, since the issue related to adjudication of the disputed question of facts, learned Single Judge was not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. However, while disposing of the writ petition, it was directed that since the petitioner had worked till 04th December 2001, respondent should not recover the amount on the ground that the petitioner was paid excess for the period he had worked beyond the period of retirement. It was further directed that the retiral benefits should be paid to the petitioner treating his date of retirement as 31st July 1999, but for the period from 04th December 2001 and onwards, without any recovery. 5. The writ petitioner thereafter preferred a Civil Review. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order, did not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed in the writ petition. 6. The writ petitioner once again, in the instant appeal, has tried to harp upon the School Leaving Certificate said to have been issued in the year 1967 where his date of birth has been mentioned as 24th July 1945. It further appears that initially, the appellant was appointed on 18.05.1964 on the post of constable. 6. The writ petitioner once again, in the instant appeal, has tried to harp upon the School Leaving Certificate said to have been issued in the year 1967 where his date of birth has been mentioned as 24th July 1945. It further appears that initially, the appellant was appointed on 18.05.1964 on the post of constable. His age was mentioned as 23 years in the candidate Register, meaning thereby that he was born in the year 1941. Thereafter, interpolation was detected where his year of birth was indicated as 1945 and there was overwriting on both age and year of birth which was in different ink and writing and there was no initial or signature on the overwriting. In such circumstances, the appellant made a representation which was also annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition relating to correction of his date of birth. 7. In the aforesaid background, learned Single Judge in the writ petition, found that these facts showed that there were disputed questions to be adjudicated which could not have been gone into in an exercise of writ jurisdiction. While disposing of the writ petition therefore, partial relief was allowed to the petitioner by directing the respondent to pay the retiral benefits treating his date of retirement as 31st July 1999 and without any recovery for the amount paid for the period he had worked in excess. 8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner / appellant has however not been able to show that there was any error apparent in the original order, as a result of which, review petition was also dismissed. As a matter of fact, in view of the observation made in the judgment dated 01st April 2003 passed in WPS No. 100/2002, the writ petitioner / appellant was not without any remedy and he could have well pursued an alternative remedy whereby disputed question of facts could have been decided. No grounds are made out for interference in the impugned order. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.