Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1288
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Siva Prasad Bezbaruah, S/o Late Dhaneswar SIL – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors – Appellants
WP(C) 1215 of 2021
Decided on : 03-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. L K BORAH, SC, F C I,MR. J PAWE
For the Respondent: ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. P K ROY
IMPORTANT POINT
Temporary service before the age of majority cannot be counted towards total service for superannuation, ensuring compliance with legal employment norms.
Headnote:
Retirement - Superannuation - Service Rules - The court interpreted the service rules regarding the age of entry and superannuation, concluding that temporary service before the age of majority should not count towards total service for retirement purposes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order mandating his retirement after 42 years of service, arguing that his actual retirement date should be based on his recorded date of birth, while the respondent contended that his service before age 18 should not count.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s initial temporary service before age 18 was not valid for calculating total service, thus determining that his retirement date should be based on his regularization date.
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s service before the age of 18 should be counted towards his total service for superannuation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that service rendered before the age of majority cannot be counted for retirement purposes, aligning with established legal principles regarding employment and age.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, setting aside the retirement order and reinstating the petitioner with a new superannuation date.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. LK Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PK Roy, learned Senior counsel for the respondent Food Corporation of India, assisted by Mr. S Chakraborty, learned counsel.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is an order dated 30.12.2020, whereby the petitioner was asked to go on superannuation allegedly after the completion of 42 years of service. It is the case of the petitioner that his actual date of retirement is 28.02.2026 as per the date of birth recorded in his matriculation pass certificate i.e. 1st of March, 1966, which is also recorded in his service book. on the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had entered the service before attaining majority and therefore, he cannot be allowed to serve more than 42 years in total.
3. Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, let this court record certain important facts that are not in dispute for proper appreciation of the issues involved in this case.
I. The petitioner was appointed by the Management of FCI District Staff Canteen Committee under the signature of the Ex-Officio Chairman of such Committee on 22.12.1978. The appointment order reflects that the petitioner will have to produce, amongst other documents, the certificate of proof of age in original. The appointment order further reflects that the petitioner was appointed as a canteen bearer on a purely temporary basis with Rs.75 per month as salary.
II. Subsequently, the service of the petitioner was regularized with effect from 26.09.1983 and from the said date the petitioner was getting regular scale of pay.
III. It is to be noted herein that during the course of service, the petitioner successfully passed HSLC examination in the year 1985 under the Secondary Board of Education, Assam and the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 01.03.1966. Therefore, admittedly, when the petitioner was engaged as a Canteen bearer on 22.12.1978, the age of the petitioner was 12 years 9 months 14 days.
IV. On 23.06.2017, the petitioner was asked to submit his original educational qualification certificate and age proof certificate. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his HSLC pass certificate along with a forwarding letter on 27.07.2017.
V. On 30.12.2020, the impugned office order was issued by the Divisional Manager, FCI whereby the petitioner was asked to go on superannuation on completion of 42 years of service in December 2020 against the date of joining on 22.12.1978.
VI. The petitioner preferred a representation on 31.12.2020 before the Division Manager and another on 20.01.2021 on the ground that the petitioner should be allowed to continue till the attainment of age of 60 years as per his date of birth recorded in his official document/matriculation certificate. When such representation was not considered, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
4. Mr. LK Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the service of the petitioner was regularized on 26.09.1983 and had been granted regular salary as a regular employee with effect from the said date. He further contends that the petitioner had successfully passed HSLC examination in the year 1985 under SEBA and as per HSLC certificate his date of birth is 01.03.1966 and the said HSLC certificate of the petitioner has not been challenged by the respondent rather such date of birth was incorporated in the service record and therefore, it is contended by Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner that the temporary service during period of minority of the petitioner cannot be counted as a regular service and his service may be considered as Boy Service. It is his further argument that the petitioner was not granted any service benefit like the other regular employees during his temporary service. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the respondent authorities have taken the plea of the petitioner being employed for
