Point of Law: Discretionary power is to be exercised with circumspection wherein the conduct of the parties is of immense significance. Such conduct of parties is not restricted to Court proceedings only but would be relevant from the point from where the cause of action has arisen. It is true that an unfettered power is conferred to this Court to do justice to a deserving party, such powers are to be exercised with self imposed restrictions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is been sought to be invoked by means of the present petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-release of his service benefits after his retirement on 27.03.2019. Though the fact of over stay in service is not disputed, it is the case of the petitioner that no fault can be attributed to him for such over stay. On the other hand, as per the respondents, the over stay was possible only because of falsification of the date of birth of the petitioner while he had entered into the services under the respondent Corporation.

2. The facts in brief of the case is required to be narrated for better appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had joined the respondent – Corporation namely Assam Electronics Development Corporation Limited (AEDCL) as a Technician. On 27.03.2019, the petitioner was asked to hand over all the official documents holding that he had ceased to be a regular employee of AEDCL on the ground of over stay in the post of Deputy Manager with the allegation of falsification of his date of birth. The petitioner alleges that no opportunity of hearing was given before passing of the order dated 27.03.2019.

4. Though the aforesaid order dated 27.03.2019 is not the subject matter of challenge, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a direction to release the service benefits of the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner is a cancer patient has also been highlighted and it is submitted that he is suffering from tremendous financial hardships. Accordingly, the petition has been filed for a direction for release of the gratuity, leave encashment, revised arrear salary, 2(two) years provision fund and salary for the month of March, 2019.

5. I have heard Shri A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the respondent – Corporation is represented by Shri B. Chakraborty, along with Shri K. Gupta, learned counsel. The materials placed before this Court has been carefully examined.

6. Shri Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the action of superannuating the petitioner on 27.03.2019 is not the subject matter of challenge and the grievances is only related to the retirement benefits. The entire controversy started after promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager of AEDCL on 31.12.2018 whereafter a 3rd party had submitted an application under the RTI Act regarding the age / date of birth of the petitioner. As a consequence thereof, certain documents were asked for from the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the relevant documents were destroyed in a flood and therefore he was not in a position to give the same and for that reason, the petitioner was not liable to be inflicted with any panel action. It has further been argued that there is no record of the matriculation examination pertaining to the petitioner and from the affidavit-in-opposition, it can be gathered that from the communication received from the Board of Secondary Education Assam (SEBA), the petitioner was of 17 years as on 01.03.1974 and calculating from the said data, the date of birth of the petitioner comes to 01.03.1957. It is the case of the petitioner that on the very next date i.e. 27.03.2019, the petitioner has been directed to hand over all official documents and he would be ceased to be a regular employee of AEDCL. The learned counsel submits that while recording his date of birth in the Corporation as 01.03.1959, there was no role played by the petitioner and therefore, he cannot be panelized because of the same. The learned counsel further submits that there is no allegation of fraud against the petitioner and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be allowed.

7. It is further submitted tha