Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Sarat Hazarika - Petitioner
Versus
State of Assam and Others (And Other Cases) - Respondent
WP(C) No. 3402, 3422, 3423 and 4475 of 2019
Decided on : 01-09-2021
Recovery of Salaries - Date of Birth Discrepancy - [RECOVERY OF SALARIES] - [DATE OF BIRTH DISCREPANCY] - [State of Bihar v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad, (2009) 3 SCC 117, Kailash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005) 13 SCC 576, Hari Singh v. State of Bihar, (2000) 10 SCC 284, Radha Kishun v. Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC 239] - The court considered the issue of recovery of salaries due to overstay caused by wrong calculation of the date of birth of the petitioners at the time of their recruitment. The court found that the petitioners cannot be faulted for the overstay as they had rendered their services in good faith and the authorities had failed to detect the discrepancies in their dates of birth. The court relied on various legal precedents to conclude that recovery from the salaries for the period of overstay was unjustified and set aside the impugned action. The petitioners were entitled to fixation of retiral benefits as per their correct dates of birth with only notional benefits for the period of overstay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, police personnel, were asked to go on retirement due to wrong calculation of their date of birth, leading to overstay in service. The authorities proposed to deduct salaries for the period of overstay from their retiral benefits. The petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the deduction orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery of salaries for the period of overstay was unjustified as the petitioners had rendered their services in good faith and the authorities had failed to detect the discrepancies in their dates of birth. The court set aside the impugned action and held that the petitioners were entitled to fixation of retiral benefits as per their correct dates of birth with only notional benefits for the period of overstay.
Issues: The issues involved were the legality and validity of the deduction orders for recovery of salaries due to overstay caused by wrong calculation of the date of birth of the petitioners at the time of their recruitment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal precedents to establish that recovery from the salaries for the period of overstay was unjustified. It emphasized that the petitioners cannot be faulted for the overstay as they had rendered their services in good faith and the authorities had failed to detect the discrepancies in their dates of birth.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned action and held that the petitioners were entitled to fixation of retiral benefits as per their correct dates of birth with only notional benefits for the period of overstay.
JUDGMENT :
1. An identical issue being involved in all the four writ petitions, the same are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The issue involved in brief pertains to the action of the respondent-authorities in purporting to make certain recoveries of the salaries of the petitioner on the ground of overstay in their services. At the outset, it may be noted that such overstay is on the principal ground of wrong calculation of the date of birth of the petitioners while entering the same in the Service Book of the petitioners at the time of their recruitment.
3. To consider and decide the aforesaid issue, it would be convenient if the facts are placed on records. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 3402/2019, WP(C) No. 3422/2019, WP(C) No. 4475/2019, namely, Shri Jagadish Kumar Deka, Shri Imran Hussain Borah and Shri Sarat Hazarika, at the time of filing of writ petitions were Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the Assam Police Radib Organization (APRO’) whereas the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3423/2019 Shri Manabendra Sarma was an Inspector in the said Organization. The petitioners have reached the aforesaid ranks by virtue of being promoted from time-to-time. It is the cases of the petitioners that at the time of entering into the services their dates of birth were recorded in the Service Book from the HSLC examination certificate submitted by the petitioners. It may be mentioned that at those times, such certificates did not contain the date of birth but the age of the candidates were written as on 1st of March of the concerned year from which the date of birth was deducible.
4. To actually understand the dispute, the particulars of the each of the candidates is given herein below-
14 years and 8 months as on 1st of March, 1973.
Date of birth recorded in the Service Book : 1.9.1959 Correct date of birth should have been 1.7.1958
(ii) WP(C) No. 3422/2019, Shri Imran Hussain Borah:
16 years and 8 months as on 1st of March, 1975.
Date of birth recorded in the Service Book : 1.5.1959 Correct date of birth should have been 2.7.1958.
(iii) WP(C) No. 3423/2019, Manabendra Sarma:
16 years and 4 months as on 1st of March, 1975.
Date of birth recorded in the Service Book : 1.11.1960 Correct date of birth should have been 1.11.1958.
(iv) WP(C) No. 4475/2019, Shri Sarat Hazarika
17 years and 2 months as on 1st of March, 1974.
Date of birth recorded in the Service Book : 1.8.1959
Correct date of birth should have been 1.1.1957.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that while serving in their respective posts, the respondent-authorities informed them that their dates of birth were recalculated and were accordingly asked to go on retirement. So far as the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3402/2019 is concerned he was informed that his actual date of birth being 1.7.1958 and not 1.9.1959 which was recorded in the Service Book, he should have been retired from service on 30.6.2018 itself and accordingly he was directed to go on retirement immediately w.e.f., 31.12.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner had received the order dated 8.1.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Communication), Assam whereby he was informed that there was a proposal to deduct salary drawn by the petitioner for the period of overstay from 30.6.2018 to 31.12.2018 from the DCRG and other benefits.
6. Similarly, So far as the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3422/2019 is concerned he was informed that his actual date of birth being 2.7.1958 and not 1.5.1959 which was recorded in the Service Book, he should have been retired from service on 31.7.2018 itself and accordingly he was directed to go on retirement immediately w.e.f. 31.1.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner had received the order dated 7.2.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Communication), Assam whereby he was informed that there was a proposal to deduct salary drawn by the petitioner for the period of overstay from 31.7.2018 to 31.1.2019 from the DCRG an
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
