Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 709 (GAU)

SONESWAR DEKA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2016-08-02

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
Heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms.S. Chutia, learned counsel representing all the respondents. 2. Grievance raised is that the petitioner was made to retire on an earlier date i.e. 31.12.2013 instead of allowing him to work until 31.12.2022. The said claim is based on the School Transfer Certificate dated 10.09.1990, purportedly issued by the Headmaster of Bamungaon ME Senior, P.O. Puthimari in the District of Kamrup as well as the letter of the Additional Chief Engineer, Mechanical Zone, W.R. Department dated 27.02.2009, wherein it is shown that his date of birth is 31.12.1962 and the date of superannuation is 31.12.2022. The School Transfer Certificate is relied upon as the same discloses that in the Admission Register of Bamungaon M.E. School his age is recorded as 11 years as on 31.12.1973. 3. In so far as the service career of the petitioner is concerned, he was appointed as a Work Charged Helper in the establishment of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Mechanical Sub-Division, Flood Control Department on 08.08.1988. In course of time and more particularly by Order dated 09.06.1988, the petitioner was brought to the regular Establishment against a vacant post of Helper. Until the date he was made to retire from service the petitioner was discharging duty as a Turner. 4. Mr. Kalita submits that for the very first time the petitioner was informed by letter dated 19.11.2013, issued by the Executive Engineer, Guwahati Mechanical Division, W.R. Department that he is going to retire on 31.12.2013. By the said letter he was asked to submit photograph and other documents for processing his pension etc. Petitioner made a Representation on 07.10.2014 expressing astonishment that his service was sought to be brought to an end w.e.f. 31.12.2013. Request was made to review the order passed on 19.11.2013 and to allow him to continue in service until his actual date of retirement. Mr. Kalita also submits that with reference to the date of his retirement, a letter was also issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Guwahati asking the Executive Engineer, Guwahati Mechanical W.R. Division to furnish the Service Book and Service Roll in original with supporting documents, based on which the date of birth was recorded initially as well as the original School Certificate of the petitioner. According to Mr. According to Mr. Kalita, without the said documents being furnished to the authority concerned, the Office Order dated 09.12.2014 came to be issued relieving the petitioner from Government service w.e.f. 31.12.2013, in pursuance of the letter of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Chandmari dated 25.11.2014. 5. On the above facts and more particularly in view of the School Transfer Certificate and that of the GPF sanction Order dated 27.02.2009 issued under the hand of the Additional Chief Engineer, Mechanical Zone, W.R. Department, the petitioner contends that the decision to retire him prematurely was wholly illegal and a product of non-application of mind. 6. Ms. S. Chutia, learned counsel representing the Water Resources Department, brings in a new twist to the case of the petitioner and while doing so reference is made to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 on 20.06.2015. From the statements and averments made in the said affidavit-in-opposition, it is shown that the Service Roll of the petitioner was opened on 20.03.1991 on the basis of the particulars furnished by the petitioner himself and which has been duly endorsed by him. As per the particulars so furnished, the date of birth recorded in the Service Roll stood as 01.12.1953. This position was never controverted by the petitioner until he received the notice that he would be attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2013. It is contended that the petitioner had neither applied for rectification/correction of his date of birth as appearing in the Service Roll or in the GPF Balance Sheet. In fact, consequent upon his regularisation in service in the year 1988, his GPF account was opened in the Office of the Accountant General (A&E) wherein his date of birth is also recorded as 01.12.1953. In all the GPF statements which had been issued to the petitioner, his date of birth was always mentioned as 01.12.1953 on top of the said yearly GPF statements. As regards the School Transfer Certificate where the age of the petitioner has been shown as 11 years as on 31.12.1973, which would go to indicate his date of birth as 31.12.1962, the State Respondents contends that the said Transfer Certificate was never brought to the notice of the respondents until 06.02.2014. As regards the School Transfer Certificate where the age of the petitioner has been shown as 11 years as on 31.12.1973, which would go to indicate his date of birth as 31.12.1962, the State Respondents contends that the said Transfer Certificate was never brought to the notice of the respondents until 06.02.2014. Also, the said Certificate does not indicate the name of the School on top of the Certificate and the office seal appearing in the Certificate is not legible enough to identify the name of the School. It is also contended that application towards correction of the date of birth, as mentioned in the Service Roll/Service Book, was made at the end of his service tenure and/or on the verge of his retirement. As regards the letter of the Additional Chief Engineer dated 27.02.2009, paragraph 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition shows that at the time when the petitioner had filled up the GPF application form by himself, the date of birth as mentioned by the petitioner himself remained the same when the GPF application form was forwarded to the Office of the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Zone, Water Resources Department. It is contended that the Service Book of the petitioner remained with him and therefore his date of birth as recorded in the Service Book could not be compared by the Office of the Additional Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department while sanctioning the GPF amount. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and the pleadings placed on records. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had submitted the School Transfer Certificate before the competent authority at any earlier point of time than in the year 2014. Also, there are no materials to show that the petitioner had made any application for rectification/alteration of his date of birth in the Service Roll/Service Book. The date of birth dated 01.12.1953 remained as it is in the Service Roll/Service Book and the same also found mention in the yearly GPF statements issued to the petitioner. To reiterate, the GPF account of the petitioner was opened consequent upon regularisation of his service in the year 1988. It is also true that the petitioner had submitted application for alteration of his date of birth only on the verge of his retirement. To reiterate, the GPF account of the petitioner was opened consequent upon regularisation of his service in the year 1988. It is also true that the petitioner had submitted application for alteration of his date of birth only on the verge of his retirement. The statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition that while opening the Service Roll of the petitioner on 20.03.1991, he had himself furnished the particulars with regard to his date of birth as 01.12.1953 has remained unrebutted. 8. It is well established that there cannot be an embargo with regard to rectification/alteration of date of birth even within three years of date of retirement if there are strong and cogent materials in support of the same. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to establish any cogent materials to satisfy the Court that he was made to retire pre-maturely by the State Respondents. From the discussion above, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same stands accordingly dismissed. No costs.