Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Samsul Hoque Barbhuiya, S/O Lt. Masur Ali Barbhuiya – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam Rep By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Deptt. of Health and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/3616/2020
Decided On : 26-07-2024
PREMATURE RETIREMENT - SERVICE RECORDS - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - The court examined the validity of the petitioner's retirement based on discrepancies in his recorded date of birth. It highlighted the importance of accurate service records and the authority of SEBA in determining age based on official documents. The court concluded that the retirement notice was justified based on SEBA's clarification regarding the petitioner's age, emphasizing the need for reliable documentation in employment matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order of premature retirement, claiming his date of birth was incorrectly recorded in his service book, leading to an earlier retirement date than entitled. He provided an Admit Card as evidence of his actual date of birth, which conflicted with SEBA's records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the SEBA's clarification regarding the petitioner's age was authoritative and conclusive. It noted inconsistencies in the petitioner's claims and the authenticity of the documents he presented, ultimately supporting the retirement order.
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s date of birth was correctly recorded and whether the retirement order was valid based on the discrepancies in the documentation provided.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the final determination of the petitioner's age was based on SEBA's official communication, which was not challenged. The discrepancies in the documents presented by the petitioner undermined his claims, leading to the conclusion that the retirement order was lawful.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, affirming the retirement order while allowing for the release of pension benefits, subject to further investigation into the authenticity of the documents submitted by the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi
An order which, according to the petitioner, is of premature retirement whereby his retirement date was fixed on 03.09.2020 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Before coming to the issue which has arisen for a determination, it would be beneficial if the facts of the case are narrated in brief.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Pharmacist in the year 1981 and by an order dated 04.05.2018 he was promoted as Head Pharmacist. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 12.09.1962. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon the Admit Card issued by the Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter SEBA), wherein it has been stated that as on 01.03.1977 his age was 14 years 5 months 19 days. The petitioner has accordingly deduced his date of birth as 12.09.1962.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that somehow in his Service Book, his date of birth was erroneously entered as 14.05.1960. Having come to know about the same, the petitioner had filed a representation on 08.08.2016. On the said representation, the Director of Health Services had issued a communication dated 03.01.2017 to the Joint Director of Health Services to make an enquiry. On such enquiry, the SEBA had issued a letter dated 31.10.2017 to the Director of Health Services, wherein it was stated that as on 01.03.1977, the age of the petitioner was 16 years 5 months 19 days. However, the SEBA had issued a subsequent communication on 05.04.2018 to the Director of Health Services, whereby it has been stated that as on 01.03.1977, the age of the petitioner was 14 years 5 months 19 days. As two different stands were taken by the SEBA, the Director of Health Services had issued a communication dated 15.06.2020 seeking a clarification. According to the petitioner, thereafter, the impugned notice was issued on 20.06.2020, as per which the date of superannuation of the petitioner was fixed on 30.09.2020. It is this notice which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
5. I have heard Shri N.J. Dutta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Ms. D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department.
6. Shri Dutta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Admit Card which has been enclosed to the writ petition would clearly show that as on 01.03.1977, the age of the petitioner was stated to be 14 years 5 months 19 days. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner has been retired two years prior to his actual age of superannuation, whereby gross injustice and prejudice has been caused to him. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the SEBA on 20.11.2020, it is submitted that as per the SEBA, the age of the petitioner as on 01.03.1977 has been declared to be 16 years 5 months 19 days. Reference has also been made to the additional affidavit filed by the SEBA on 15.03.2024, whereby certain allegations were made on the veracity and authenticity of the documents relied upon by the petitioner regarding his claim of date of birth. It is submitted that the SEBA had taken up the issue that the font of the letters were different and there was no counter signature of the officer-in-charge. The issue of the spelling of “Guwahati” and not “Gauhati” has also been raised. He has thereafter referred to the affidavit-in-reply dated 09.04.2024 in which, a certificate of another person of the contemporary period has been annexed, wherein the font of the letters used is the same as that of the certificate of the petitioner and the Admit Card also did not contain the counter signature. He accordingly submits that this Court may interfere with the impugned notice dated 20.06.2020 and direct the respondent authorities to deem the petitioner to be in service for the next 2 years and accordingly pay his entitl
The court established that official records from recognized authorities, such as SEBA, are determinative in employment matters regarding age and retirement, and discrepancies in personal documentatio....
The court upheld the retirement order based on the medical board's age determination, ruling that the school certificate's authenticity was not established, negating the need for an enquiry.
The original date of birth recorded in a government employee's service book is deemed correct for all purposes, overriding any subsequent alterations.
Tampering with age records to gain employment advantage invalidates claims to continued service; retirement at correct age does not breach natural justice.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of corporations/departments to rectify date of birth disputes and the importance of adhering to the procedure for such rectifications, ....
The court ruled that corrections to an employee's recorded date of birth must be made promptly and substantiated by irrefutable evidence, especially when requested at the end of service.
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
