Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 206 (JHR)

Meera Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2021-02-18

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the original-petitioner, namely, Dhiraj Araya praying therein for a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay the gratuity amounting to Rs.13,760/ @ Rs.860 per month for 16 months as well as Rs.6880 as earned leave for 240 days along with interest and also the salary for the period when the petitioner was deprived of his service since he was forced to retire 18 months prior of his 65 years of age. During pendency of this application, the original-petitioner-Dhiraj Araya died and his widow-Vedam Devi also died and thereafter, their daughters, namely, Meera Devi and Gaytri Devi were substituted by the order of this Court, who is the present petitioners. 3. The facts as disclosed in the instant writ application are that the petitioner was appointed as Land Farmer Assistant on 11.12.1959 for Bhudan Yagna Committee, an autonomous body. He undertook many projects discharging his duty sincerely and he was forced to retire on the basis of letter No.10 Kh/2003-206 dated 09.06.2003 wherein it has been mentioned that his age is above 65 years and he is not physically fit to serve the said committee. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation dated 11.06.2003 to the Chairman, Bhudan Yagna Committee stating therein that he is only 63 years and 6 months old and he has made to retire prematurely and he is physically fit to work. Further case of the petitioner is that though he filed several representations/reminders but the respondent authorities sat tight over the matter. 4. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner draws attention towards the order dated 09.06.2003; whereby the petitioner was informed that since he had already attained 65 years of age and his health is not proper as such; the petitioner was informed to superannuate from his service and was further asked to submits documents so that his retiral benefits can be processed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation for revoking the retirement order stating therein that petitioner had worked for 43 years and 5 months 28 days in the Committee, and he is 63 years 6 months old and physically fit as well. Learned sr. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation for revoking the retirement order stating therein that petitioner had worked for 43 years and 5 months 28 days in the Committee, and he is 63 years 6 months old and physically fit as well. Learned sr. counsel further submits that when nothing was heard from the respondents’ side, he preferred another representation and finally he was forced to knock the door of this Court under its writ jurisdiction. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein the stand has been stated at paragraph no.6. For better appreciation para-6 is quoted herein below. “6.That for proper appreciation of the points raised in this writ application, it would be pertinent to state a brief history which are being submitted hereunder:- (i) That erstwhile Bihar Bhudan Yogya Committee has fixed age of superannuation as 65 years for its employees. The Committee has power to extend that period of 65 years for maximum 3 years more, keeping in account the health of the employee and in the interest of committee’s work. (ii) That in the light of decision of aforementioned the respondent no.2 repeatedly asked from writ petitioner to submit documents with regard to his age but he always avoided to give a correct information to the committee. (iii) That on the request of Bihar Bhudan Yogya Committee the writ petitioner had submitted statement of the employer but did not mention his date of birth therein which is mentioned in page-18 of his service book. (iv) That vide letter no.1377 dtd.3/5-9-1979, the petitioner was asked to submit certificate in support of date of birth. The petitioner submitted his date of birth in a place application without support of any certificate issued by any competent authority stating his date of birth as 01.01.1940. (v) That Bihar Bhudan Yogya Committee rejected his date of birth and again vide letter no.1048 dtd. 19.07.1983 directed to produce the educational certificate. Again reminder was sent vide letter no.1265 dtd. 11.08.83 for production of education certificate in support of his date of birth but in spite of that the writ petitioner has not produced any document in support of date of birth till date. (vi) That after bifurcation of the state and creation of Jharkhand Bhudan Yogya Committee the respondent no.2 after verifying the record of writ petitioner again vide his letter no.89 dtd. (vi) That after bifurcation of the state and creation of Jharkhand Bhudan Yogya Committee the respondent no.2 after verifying the record of writ petitioner again vide his letter no.89 dtd. 3.3.2003 asked the writ petitioner to submit his educational certificate with a specific averment therein that in non-compliance thereof there will be difficulty for the committee to calculate and pass the retiral benefit payable to the petitioner. Inspite of that till date the writ petitioner has not submitted any educational certificate of date of birth/age. (vii) That it would be pertinent to state here that on 14.1.1960 the writ petitioner had submitted an application to the Bihar Budan Yogya Committee Patna stating therein that he is working in Bhudan work since 1954 and requested for his appointment as Land Farmer Assistant. Even taking into account his age as 18 years in the year 1954 and the date of his superannuation as 01.7.2003, whereas extension for the month of July approved by the Committee, he worked upto the age of 67 years 7 months without any order of extension by the Committee whereas the period of superannuation is 65 years. By not submitting the correct date of birth and by suppressing his correct age, the writ petitioner have received salary of 31 months in excess. The allegation of the writ petitioner that he is entitled to 18 months salary for (the period due of superannuation) gratuity and earn leave is baseless and unfounded. 6. Ms. Shivani Kapoor, A.C. to S.C.II, learned counsel for the respondent-State reiterated the stand mentioned in the counter affidavit and submits that the respondent No.2 repeatedly asked the writ petitioner to submit documents with regard to his age but for the reasons best known to the petitioner; no proof of age was ever submitted by him. In this regard the respondents relied upon two letters which has been annexed as Annexure-C and C/1. She further submits that a “Form” was given to the petitioner which was to be filled up by him with regard to his personal details and in the said ‘Form’ also, the petitioner for the reasons best known to him, did not fill his date of birth, instead he wrote that once it has been sent to the Office Bhudan Yagna Committee at Munger. Relying upon the aforesaid facts she contended that no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 7. Relying upon the aforesaid facts she contended that no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein; it clearly transpires that though learned senior counsel vehemently argued on Annexure-2 which was the letter given to the original-petitioner whereby he was asked to retire from service; has not been challenged in this writ application. The original-petitioner has simply prayed for retiral benefits of those periods for which he did not work. It goes without saying that unless that particular letter is quashed, no further prayer can be granted to the present petitioners. 8. Now coming to the issue of date of birth; it clearly transpires from the documents annexed in the counter affidavit that in the “Form” which was handed over to the original-petitioner to be filled up by him giving his personal details i.e. his education qualification, date of first appointment, date of birth etc.; the original-petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, filled up entire particulars, save and except his date of birth. It further transpires that vide letter dated 19.07.1983 the original-petitioner was requested to submits his age proof certificate and when he failed to produce the same, a reminder was also given vide letter dated 11.08.1983, but till date of filing of the writ application the original-petitioner did not submit his age proof. It goes without saying that even in the writ application, the original-petitioner did not annexed any age proof showing his date of birth and it is only in the rejoinder filed in the year 2010; a transfer certificate of one school has been annexed which certainly creates a doubt that the original-petitioner was not having any certificate and only for this reason he has not even challenged the order dated 09.06.2003, whereby he was asked to retire from service. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the order dated 09.06.2003; whereby the original-petitioner was asked to retire on a particular date, has neither been challenged in the original writ application nor being assailed in the amendment application, no relief can be granted to the present petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the order dated 09.06.2003; whereby the original-petitioner was asked to retire on a particular date, has neither been challenged in the original writ application nor being assailed in the amendment application, no relief can be granted to the present petitioner. Before parting, it is necessary to indicate that though one amendment application has been filed being I.A. No.1414 of 2010, but in the said interlocutory application also the petitioner did not challenged the order dated 09.06.2003. The law is well settled that if any order is not challenged then no subsequent benefits can be given. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to show any record satisfying this Court with regard to his age and/or mala-fide on the part of the respondent authorities. 9. In view of the aforesaid findings, the instant writ application is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. Accordingly, any pending I.A. also stands dismissed.