Point of Law : Note under Service Rule 8 of the FR & SR clearly stipulates that the Head of the Office should record the date of birth in the Service Book of a non-gazetted government servant on his initial appointment with reference to the birth certificate.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. I. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Higher Education Department, Assam, i.e. the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Also heard Mr. D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 & 6; Ms. D. D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. S. K. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the communication dated 11.06.2018 and the reference letter bearing No.DHE/PEN/270/2017/pt/5 dated 11.06.2018, for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the gratuity and leave encashment along with finalization and release of provisional pension as well as also for a direction upon the respondent authorities not to adjust the amount of salary which the petitioner has already received from 01.05.2014 to 30.04.2017 on the ground of overstay in service.

3. The facts of the instant case are that the petitioner did her schooling at Pine Mount School, Shillong and in the year 1972, she qualified in the Indian School Certificate Examination and a certificate was issued which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said certificate shows that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded therein was 20th April, 1954.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she was actually born on 20.04.1957 but in the said certificate it was wrongly recorded as 20.04.1954. This mistake was noticed some time in the year 1984 and the father of the petitioner sworn an affidavit before the Judicial Magistrate stating inter-alia that the petitioner was born on 20.04.1957 at his residence, and accordingly, the age of the petitioner was 27 years as on 20.04.1984. It is relevant to mention that no materials have been placed that the petitioner took steps for correction of her date of birth in the said certificate.

5. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in English by the Principal D. K. College, Mirza on 05.11.1984, and thereafter, she joined in her service and in due course, her appointment was approved by the Competent Authority. It is further stated that her service was confirmed by an order dated 09.10.1993 with effect from 18.02.1993 by the Joint Director of Higher Education, Assam, Kahilipara. It is the further case of the petitioner that in her Service Book, her date of birth was reflected as 20.04.1957 and in all her service records her actual and correct date of birth was reflected to be 20.04.1957. The petitioner continued to render her services until she got retired from her services as an Associate Professor from the D. K. College, Mirza on 20.04.2017. At this stage, it may be relevant herein to mention that though in the petitioner’s Service Book the date of birth was recorded as 20.04.1957, but at no point during the entire service career of the petitioner, the respondent authorities had issued notice to the petitioner alleging that her date of birth recorded in the Service Book was incorrect and it ought to have been 20.04.1954.

6. Subsequent to her retirement, the petitioner submitted all her necessary testimonials to the respondent authorities to release and finalize her pension and other pensionary benefits. As her pension as well as her pensionary benefits were not finalized, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No. 3 for finalization of her pension case. Thereupon, the petitioner received two communications which were issued by the Senior Accounts Office of the Office of the Accountant General (A & E), Assam to the Treasury Officer, Kamrup (Metro) whereby the PPO No.919211242721 was forwarded in favour of the petitioner and requested the respondent No. 6 that the pensioner’s portion of the order may be made over to her after obtaining her signature on the disburser’s portion. Vide another communication also is