Ramdhan Pathak vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and Others

R.K. Merathia, J.—Petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing Office Order vide Memo No. 929 dated 9.6.1998 (Annexure 5) issued by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar (respondent No. 5) by which petitioner was informed that he is going to be superannuated with effect from 31.1.1999 on the basis of his date of birth being 15.1.1941 as recorded in the service book.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended as follows. From the Cross List of Matriculation Examination (Annexure 1) and the Middle School Pass Certificate (Annexure 2), it will appear that the date of birth of the petitioner is "2.7.1946". When he was appointed as Constable on 3.4.1964, he was 17 years 9 months 1 day old. His case is covered by the judgment dated 1.12.1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4107 of 1997 Shiv Pukar Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. The seniority list prepared by the department was never circulated and, therefore, petitioner did not know about the mistake in the service book regarding date of birth.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State with reference to the counter affidavit submitted as follows. Petitioner''s date of birth recorded in his service book is 15.1.1941. On the basis of the said date of birth, a seniority list of Sub-Inspectors was prepared in the year 1989 wherein petitioner''s name figured at Serial No. 1684 and his date of birth was shown as 15.1.1941 but the petitioner never protested to such date of birth, though the said seniority list was circulated for information to all concerned. Petitioner appeared in the Matriculation Examination in 1962 i.e. prior to his appointment. He could produce the Admit Card etc., issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in support of proof of his date of birth at the time of appointment in 1964. Even after he passed Matriculation Examination in 1968, he never tried to get the date of birth corrected, if it was wrongly recorded in his service book, but at the fag end of service, he claimed alteration of his date of birth which is not permissible in view of Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules and Rule 1041(b) of the Bihar Police Manual under which no correction or alteration of date of birth can be allowed after ten years of entering into service. He further relied on the judgment dated 28.4.1997 (Annexure B) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7243 of 1996 Awadh Behari Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

The judgment of Shiv Pukar Singh (Supra) (Annexure 6) is of no help to the petitioner. In that case, the petitioner therein got appointment by suppressing his actual date of birth, as on the date of appointment, he was below 18 years but only a few months after his appointment, he produced Matriculation Certificate and requested for correction of age in the service record. Against the column of date of birth in his service book, it was stated that "according to M.C. 1.12.41, according to affidavit 1.6.1939". But, in the present case, the petitioner did not take any steps for correction of date of birth recorded in the service book till he was given the impugned notice of superannuation on 9.6.1998 i.e. after about 34 years of his appointment. The entry about the date of birth is a vital thing concerning the service of an employee.

As per the said rules, an employee can apply for correction of his date of birth within 10 years of entering in the service. Fixing such limitation is not without any purpose. The case of Awadh Behari Singh (supra) (Annexure B) relied by the respondents is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In my opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner has not been paid all his retiral benefits, after he retired on 31.1.1999 as per the impugned letter dated 9.6.1998 (Annexure 5). Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the legally payable amount will be paid to the petitioner, if not paid.

In the circumstances, the petitioner will be at liberty to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar (respondent No. 5) for payment of his post retrial dues, if any. The respondent No. 5 will see that if any amount legally payable to the petitioner is due, the same is paid. If any amount claimed by the petitioner, is found not payable, reasons thereof should be communicated to him. This exercise should be completed within two months from the date of receipt of such representation.

With the observations and directions aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.