JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Government Advocate, Assam representing the respondent No.5 and Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, A.G. for the respondent No.6. 2. Way back on 10.10.1973, the petitioner Sri Loksheswar @ Lakheswar Das was appointed as regular Jugali under Bokakhat Electrical Sub-Division under the control of the respondent no.1. In course of his service he was promoted to the post of Lower Division Assistant and from that post he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The present dispute is with regard to the date of birth and the date of retirement of the petitioner which, according to the respondents were 01.09.1949 and 31.07.2009 respectively. According to the petitioner, his date of birth and date of retirement are 01.04.1952 and 30.04.2012. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner had overstayed in service for the period from 01.08.2009 to 30.04.2012 and as per the Board's Order dated 04.09.2012 the excess salary drawn by the petitioner is liable to be recovered from his post retirement benefits minus admissible pension. 3. To elaborate certain relevant facts, the Service Book of the petitioner had initially recorded his date of birth as 01.08.1949 and this Service Book was opened on 10.10.1973 containing the signature of the petitioner, counter signed by SDO, Bokakhat Electrical Sub-Division. The said date of birth was corrected on 19.05.1989 according to the petitioner's HSLC Examination Certificate No. 5882 of 1975 as 01.04.1952. The said correction was made under the signature of a higher authority i.e. the Executive Engineer, Golaghat Electrical Division. The petitioner continued to work all along and at no point of time prior to his superannuation from service, any questions had been raised by the respondents' authority disputing his date of birth. As the petitioner's date of retirement was nearing, a letter was issued by the Assistant General Manager, Golaghat Electrical Division dated 29.10.2011, informing the petitioner that as per Service Records he will be attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2012 (A/N). This was followed by another letter dated 30.04.2012 of the Deputy Manager, Bokakhat Electrical Sub-Division, acknowledging his date of retirement as 30.04.2012 (A/N) and appreciating his service rendered to the Board. This was followed by another letter dated 30.04.2012 of the Deputy Manager, Bokakhat Electrical Sub-Division, acknowledging his date of retirement as 30.04.2012 (A/N) and appreciating his service rendered to the Board. An Office Order dated 23.05.2012 came to be issued authorising payment of a sum of Rs.6,47,252/- in favour of the petitioner who had retired on 30.04.2012. The said amount was the amount lying to his credit in the GPF Account No. 3684 including interest upto May 2012. 4. Controversy with regard to the petitioners' date of birth surfaced sometime in June, 2012 i.e. after about a period of two months from the date of retirement of the petitioner. The Chief General Manager (D) APDCL had marked a letter dated 06.06.2012 to the Assistant General Manager, Golaghat Electrical Division indicating that certain anomalies appeared in the Service Book of the petitioner regarding the date of birth. The said letter also indicated that the date of birth was initially recorded as 01.08.1949 in the First page of Part-I of the Service Book which is found to have been struck out and replaced by a new date i.e. 01.04.1952. Accordingly, the Assistant General Manager, Golaghat Electrical Division was requested to clarify the matter and to furnish his reply to that end for disposal of the pension case of the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, a process of inquiry was initiated by the Assistant General Manager, Golaghat Electrical Division and the matter was taken up with the Head Master of Kuruabahi H.S. School, where the petitioner had done his schooling as well as with the Principal of Bokakhat Higher Secondary School from which institution the petitioner had appeared for the HSLC Examination. 6. The enquiry with the aforesaid authorities was made by issuing formal letters. Whereas the Head Master of Kuruabahi H.S. School informed in writing that the class-wise record and admission records is not found in the school as some of the said records have been destroyed by white ants, the reply received from the office of the Principal, Bokakhat Higher Secondary School indicated that the petitioner had appeared for the HSLC examination as a candidate of Bokakhat Center and that his date of birth according to the HSLC Center records is 01.04.1952. The aforesaid information, obtained on inquiry, was brought to the knowledge of the Chief General Manager (D) by the Assistant General Manager, Golaghat Electrical Division by his letter dated 30.06.2012. The aforesaid information, obtained on inquiry, was brought to the knowledge of the Chief General Manager (D) by the Assistant General Manager, Golaghat Electrical Division by his letter dated 30.06.2012. A view was also expressed that the date of birth may be taken as 01.04.1952. 7. Not to stop here, the Chief General Manager (D) addressed a letter to the petitioner on 08.08.2002 requiring him to show cause and to explain as to why excess salary drawn by overstaying in service shall not be recoverable from his gratuity and other post-retirement benefits. It was also indicated that the terminal benefits will be calculated on the basis of his actual date of retirement. The petitioner explained his position by letter dated 21.08.2012 which, however, did not find favour and which culminated in the impugned Office Order dated 04.09.2012. For a better appreciation of the stand of the respondent, APDCL, the said Office Order is reproduced hereunder: " Assam Power Distribution Company Limited O/o The Chief General Manager (D), Uaz, Bijulee Bhawan Paltan Bazar, Guwahati-1 GM(D)/APDCL/(UAZ)/PEN/12/79/8 Date: 04.09.2012 Perused the representation dated 21.08.2012 submitted by Sri Lokheswar Das, Retd. B/C under Golaghat Elect. Division, APDCL, UAR, Golaghat in response to this office letter No. CGM (D)/APDCL (UAZ)/PEN/12/79 dated 08.08.2012. Also, perused all the records/documents related to the case. The instant case has come to light only after examination of the pension proposal of Sri Das which was sent to this office after actually releasing him from service. On examination of the matter, it was seen that Sri Lokheswar Das was appointed as Regular Jugali under Bokakhat Elect. Sub-Division and his the date of birth was found recorded initially as 01.08.1949 (According to admit card of HSLC Examination) in the Part-I of his Service Book under seal and signature of the then Controlling Officer. The said date of birth was also accepted by Sri Das by putting his signature on that page of the Service Book. But the AGM of Golaghat El. Division had recorded another date of birth of Sri Das in his Service Book as 01.04.1952 on 19.05.1989 on the basis of the HSLC Examination submitted by Sri Das. But this new date of birth is not found tally with that of the date of birth recorded initially in the Service Book. Hence, this new date of birth is not acceptable. But this new date of birth is not found tally with that of the date of birth recorded initially in the Service Book. Hence, this new date of birth is not acceptable. Therefore, it was decided to confirm the date of birth of Sri Das as 01.08.1949 which was recorded initially in his Service Book. Consequent thereupon, Sri Das had attained the age of his superannuation at the age of 60 years on 31.07.2009. But Sri Das remained in service upto 30.04.2012, and thereby, he overstayed in service w.e.f. 01.08.2009 to 30.04.2012. As per Board's Order No.ASEB/PEN/110/82/Pt-IV/125 dated 18.09.1997, excess salary drawn by an employee during his overstayed period in service is recoverable from his gratuity and other post retirement benefits minus admissible pension. In view of the above, Sri Das was asked to explain his position on the matter vide this office letter No.CGM(D)/APDCL(UAZ)/PEN/12/79 dated 08.08.2012, within 15 days. In response to the above communication dated 08.08.2012 Sri Das has submitted his representation dated 21.08.2012 along with photocopy of the documents in support of his date of birth. On perusal of the representation, however, the explanation is not found to be satisfactory. Contrary to his explanation, it is reiterated the fact as has been mentioned in the forgoing paragraphs that the date of birth of Sri Lokheswar Das was initially recorded as 01.08.1949 in his Service Book under seal and signature of the then Controlling Officer. The said date of birth was also accepted by Sri Das by putting his signature on that page of the Service Book. Therefore, the date of birth of Sri Lokheswar Das is confirmed as 01.08.1949 which to be recorded afresh in his Service Book. Accordingly, Sri Lokheswar Das had overstayed in service w.e.f.01.08.2009 to 30.04.2012. Now, in terms of Board's Order No. ASEB/PEN/110/82/Pt-IV/125 dated 18.09.1997, it is ordered that the excess salary drawn by Sri Lokheswar Das, Retd. B/C during his overstayed period in service w.e.f. 01.08.2009 to 30.04.2012 be recovered from his post retirement benefits minus admissible pension. The representation dated 21.08.2012 of Sri Das is disposed of accordingly. Chief General Manager (D) UAR, APDCL, Bijulee Bhawan, Guwahati-1 Date: 04.09.2012" 8. According to the said Office Order dated 04.09.2012, the alleged anomaly in the date of birth of the petitioner had only come to light when the pension proposal was examined after release of the petitioner from service. The representation dated 21.08.2012 of Sri Das is disposed of accordingly. Chief General Manager (D) UAR, APDCL, Bijulee Bhawan, Guwahati-1 Date: 04.09.2012" 8. According to the said Office Order dated 04.09.2012, the alleged anomaly in the date of birth of the petitioner had only come to light when the pension proposal was examined after release of the petitioner from service. The date of birth recorded initially as 01.08.1949 was according to the Admit Card of the HSLC Examination of the petitioner's, under seal and signature of the then Controlling Officer, duly accepted by the petitioner by putting his signature on the relevant page of the Service Book. Another date of birth came to be recorded on 19.05.1989 under signature of the then Executive Engineer who discharged functions as an Assistant General Manager of Golaghat Electrical Division. This new date of birth did not tally with the date of birth recorded initially in the Service Book and, therefore, by the impugned Office Order dated 04.09.2012, it was held that the new date of birth is not acceptable and the petitioner who was to retire on 31.07.2009, on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years of age, overstayed in service from 01.08.2009 to 30.04.2012. As per Board's Order, the excess salary drawn by the petitioner for the period from 01.08.2009 to 30.04.2012 was held to be recovered from his post retirement benefit less the admissible pension. 9. Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Office Order dated 04.09.2012 had not been rendered in proper perspective by taking into account the pros and cons of the case. It is contended that the respondents are custodian of the Service Book in question and for years together the said respondents were full well aware of the date of birth recorded in the Service Report as 01.04.1952. In fact, the said date of birth is on the basis of a valid document issued by a statutory authority and at no point of time any proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, either on account of any misrepresentation or on grounds of committing fraud or having produced a forged matriculation certificate. Also, the process that has been initiated by the respondents to ascertain the actual date of birth from the School Authorities was given a total go-by and there is not a whisper in the Office Order dated 04.09.2012. Also, the process that has been initiated by the respondents to ascertain the actual date of birth from the School Authorities was given a total go-by and there is not a whisper in the Office Order dated 04.09.2012. Having served the respondents for long 39 years, it is improper on the part of the said respondents to withhold a balance of Rs.2,28,687/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner and/or to recover the alleged excess salary drawn by the petitioner for the period between 01.08.2009 to 30.04.2012 from his post retirement benefits and/or to fix retiral benefits taking his date of superannuation as 31.07.2009. Challenging the action of the respondents, Mr. Sarma relies upon the case of the State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 . 10. Per contra, Mr. D. Nath submits that the date of birth, initially recorded in the Service book of the petitioner as 01.08.1949, had to be considered as the correct date, inasmuch as, the petitioner himself had endorsed the same by putting his signature in the Service Book. It is also contended that the date of birth initially recorded was subsequently replaced by the Executive Engineer, Golaghat Electrical Division on 19.05.1989 and the said authority, not being competent, could not have done so. According to Mr. Nath, it is the Chief General Manager who is competent to make any alteration in the Service Book. Accordingly, the submission is that the Office Order dated 04.09.2012 does not suffer from any infirmity and warrants no interference of this Court. For all intents and purposes, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation of 60 years on 31.07.2009 and having continued in service until 30.04.2012, apparently he has overstayed in service. The necessary corollary is that the excess salary drawn by the petitioner for the period between 01.08.2009 to 30.04.2012 is liable to be recovered and since the petitioner is no longer in service, such recovery can only be made from his post retirement benefits. Also, the pension payable to the petitioner can only be computed by holding that he had retired from service on 31.07.2009 and not on 30.04.2012. Mr. Also, the pension payable to the petitioner can only be computed by holding that he had retired from service on 31.07.2009 and not on 30.04.2012. Mr. Nath also relies upon the case of State of Bihar and Others v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad reported in (2009) 3 SCC 117 to say that even if salary cannot be recovered from the petitioner on account of overstay, at least the respondents authority would be entitled to fix the retiral benefits of the petitioner as per the date of superannuation i.e. 31.07.2009. 11. The rival submissions have been noticed. First and foremost, the issue as to whether the alleged excess salary drawn by the petitioner can be recovered or not, is an issue which is no more res integra. In the decisions relied upon by the counsels, the common thread is that recovery would not be permissible in law particularly in respect of the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service. Admittedly, on the date of retirement the petitioner was serving as a Class-III employee under the respondents authority. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab (Supra) has held that the right to recover would be maintainable so long as the same is not arbitrary or iniquitous. The element of extreme hardship that may visit an employee in case of recovery has also been noted by the Apex Court. In that context, it was held that the recovery from employees belonging to the lower rungs of service should not be ordinarily effected by subjecting the employee to the vagaries of life. The exception carved out in the Apex Court decision is that the recovery of excess payment may be sustainable if the same had been done on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. 12. In the instant case it is not the stand of the respondents' authority that the petitioner had misrepresented or committed fraud by tinkering and altering his date of birth from 01.08.1949 to 01.04.1952. Apparently, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner and the entire confusion was the result of non-application of mind on the part of the respondents' authority. If there had been a mistake, the respondents authority being the custodian of the Service Book, ought not to have waited for long 39 years to point out any mistake after the petitioner was allowed to go on retirement. 13. If there had been a mistake, the respondents authority being the custodian of the Service Book, ought not to have waited for long 39 years to point out any mistake after the petitioner was allowed to go on retirement. 13. The Office Order dated 04.09.2012 was also rendered by not taking relevant facts into consideration, inasmuch as, there is absolutely no mention of the views of the School Authorities supporting the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.04.1952. The only ground alleged by the respondents Authority is that the date of birth, as originally recorded, had stood at 01.08.1949 and the same was subsequently replaced by 01.04.1952. On perusal of the Service Book it is seen that the said alteration was made by the Executive Engineer, Golaghat Electrical Division who is a higher authority in the hierarchy than the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bokakhat Electrical Sub-Division. On a pointed query of this Court, Mr. Nath has not been able to show on what grounds the endorsement made by the Executive Engineer can stand faulted and/or the same being not as per the procedure. Although, a statement has been made in the affidavit-in-opposition that it is only the Chief General Manager who is competent to make alteration, the same do not find support from any rules and regulations. 14. On the question whether the alleged excess salary can be recovered from the petitioner, this Court holds that having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the catena of decisions referred to above, the same is not open to the respondents authority. What remains to be decided is whether the pension payable to the petitioner has to be computed from 31.07.2009 or 01.04.1952. To reiterate, according to the respondents authority, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2009, whereas according to the petitioner, his date of retirement is 30.04.2012. The discussions above substantially covers the answer to this question. The Matriculation Certificate records the age of the petitioner as 22 years 11 months as on 01.03.1975 and by simple arithmetic the date of birth of the petitioner stands at 01.04.1952. The said Matriculation Certificate is not a disputed document and it was on the basis of this vital document that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the Service Book subsequently as 01.04.1952. The said Matriculation Certificate is not a disputed document and it was on the basis of this vital document that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the Service Book subsequently as 01.04.1952. There is no allegation of any misrepresentation or commission of fraud at the instance of the petitioner. No disciplinary proceedings had ever been initiated on this ground against the petitioner. It is too well settled in law that educational certificate and/or the School Certificate stands as a vital piece of document for ascertaining the age and/or the date of birth of an employee. Accordingly, this Court is left without any option but to hold that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.04.1952. The stand of the State respondents does not appear to be correct. Also, the order dated 04.09.2012 was not passed by considering all relevant facts and the same had been passed only as a matter of course. The Office Order dated 04.09.2012 cannot stand the scrutiny of law and is liable to be interfered with, which is accordingly done. 15. In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands allowed by setting aside the Office Order dated 04.09.2012 with further direction to the State respondents to forthwith pay the amount of Rs.2,28,687/-, which has been withheld from payment, as well as the gratuity and leave encashment due to the petitioner. It is also made clear that the pension payable to the petitioner will be computed by taking 30.04.2012 as the date of retirement of the petitioner. Needless to say that the directions, as above, be complied with within a period of 4 (four) months from today. 16. In view of above the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.