Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 163 (GAU)

NIRMAL REE v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-01-30

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. For the petitioner, heard Mr. N.D. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing on instruction of his Senior Mr. A.K. Sharma. The respondents are represented by Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Government Advocate, Assam. 2. The petitioner served as a Muster Roll Worker at the ECC, Salamatpur under the Asstt. Director of Sericulture, Cachar, Silchar. He was released on superannuation on 31.1.2010. The contention of the petitioner is that a wrong date of birth was taken into account for ordering his early retirement, under the impugned order dated 29.1.2010 (Annexure-6) . 3. The learned Counsel projects that the petitioners correct birth date is 6.1.1958 and his service as a Muster Roll Worker was regularized on 14.10.2005. Accordingly it is argued that the respondents should have acted on the representation flied on 26.2.2009 (Annexure-3) for correction of the birth date, before forcing the premature retirement, of the Muster Roll Worker. The employee claims to have studied in the Pearson Institution (M.E. School) , Dewan, Cachar and on the basis of the Certificate issued by the School Headmaster, he contends that his correct birth date is 6.1.1958. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Government Advocate refers to the regularization order dated 14.10.2005, where the retirement date of the Muster Roll Worker was clearly mentioned as 31.1.2010. Yet the employee failed to take any step to apply for correction of his birth date and belatedly gave the representation on 26.2.2009, just on the eve of his retirement. Accordingly, it is argued that the late plea for correction of the birth date could not have been entertained, by the authority. 5. The date of superannuation for the petitioner was recorded as 31.1.2010 in the regularization order issued on 14.10.2005 (Annexure-2) . If a wrong date of retirement was mentioned in that order, the petitioner could have immediately raised his grievances. But he failed to challenge the retirement date and applied for correction on the eve of superannuation. Such belated plea for change of birth date of a government servant cannot be entertained. Thus I find no illegality in the retirement of the Muster Roll Worker w.e.f. 31.1.2010, as was notified in the order dated 14.10.2005. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Such belated plea for change of birth date of a government servant cannot be entertained. Thus I find no illegality in the retirement of the Muster Roll Worker w.e.f. 31.1.2010, as was notified in the order dated 14.10.2005. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, as the counter affidavit shows that the employee is yet to submit the pension papers to the Directorate of Sericulture, it is made clear that this order will not have any adverse impact on the payable superannuation dues for the petitioner. It is ordered accordingly. 6. With the above order, the case stands disposed without any order on cost.