JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the Oil India Limited.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14.06.2017, by which an amount of Rs. 23,97,895/- is sought to be recovered from the retirement dues of the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1, on the ground that the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 had overstayed in service by 1 (one) year. The petitioners’ case is that the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 joined as a Clerk/Typist in the establishment of the respondent no. 3 on 16.10.1990, on the basis of a judgment dated 13.08.1990, passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 1083/1988.

3. The husband of the petitioner No. 1.1, in the Bio-Data Proforma made at the time of entry into service had recorded his date of birth to be 01.03.1956 and as such, should have retired on 28.02.2016. However, the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 retired one year later on 28.02.2017.

4. The respondent No. 4 had issued a retirement letter dated 21.09.2016 to the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 stating that as per the record, he was to reach the age of 60 years on 28.02.2017 and as such was to retire on 28.02.2017. Accordingly, he was asked to fill up various forms and to vacate the Company’s quarter occupied by him within three months of his retirement. Subsequent to the above, the respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 27.10.2016 to the Chief Engineer Pipeline (Operation), informing him to advice the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1, to submit the required forms for availing the Post Retirement Medical Benefit Scheme.

5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that just prior to the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 retirement, a Show-Cause-Notice dated 24.02.2017 was issued to the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1, stating that it had come to notice of the authorities that husband of the petitioner No. 1.1’s date of birth recorded in the Register of Employees, has been tampered with and changed to 01.03.1957. Since the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 was the beneficiary due to tampering of the records, it could be presumed that the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 was involved in the act of tampering. Further, as the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 was well aware about his date of retirement, husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 continued to be in service, by concealing the fact that he had already attained the age of 60 years on 29.02.2016. The notice dated 24.02.2017 thus stated that the above act amounted to fraud and dishonesty on the part of the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 in connection with the business of the Oil India Limited and therefore, amounted to misconduct. He was accordingly asked to submit a written explanation. The husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 thereafter submitted a reply dated 02.03.2017 to the Show- Case-Notice dated 24.02.2017, stating that when he joined the Oil India Limited, he received an Identity Card showing his date of birth as 01.03.1957 and as such, believed the same to be his correct date of birth. He also stated that he had nothing to do with the alleged tampering with his date of birth recorded in the Register of Employees.

6. The husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 was thereafter promoted to the job Grade-EG2 Grade Code E2 with the new designation of Supervising Assistant, vide letter dated 21.12.2016.

7. Subsequent to the above, Notice of Enquiry dated 03.04.2017 was issued to the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1, wherein it is stated that it had been decided to hold a formal enquiry into the charges levelled against the husband of the petitioner No. 1.1. The husband of the petitioner No. 1.1 being aggrieved against the Notice of Enquiry dated 03.04.2017 filed WP (C) No. 2512/2017. Interim order dated 03.05.2017 was passed in WP (C) No. 2512/2017, with an observation that recovery of the alre