Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J
Niran Gogoi S/o- Tanu Ram Gogoi - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 6 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) / 4888 / 2024
Decided On : 25-02-2025
(A) Service Law - Date of Birth - The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, claimed retirement based on a date of birth recorded as 20.05.1964, but was retired on 30.03.2018 based on evidence showing a date of birth of 30.03.1958. The court noted that affidavits do not constitute valid evidence for establishing date of birth. (Paras 2 , 5 , 15 , 24 )
(B) Misrepresentation - The court held that the petitioner manipulated his date of birth for personal gain, which constitutes fraud. The authorities were justified in seeking recovery of excess salary paid during the overstayed period. (Paras 23 , 25 )
(C) Evidence - The court reaffirmed that the matriculation certificate has greater evidentiary weight than an affidavit regarding date of birth. (Paras 18 , 19 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher based on an HSLCE certificate showing a date of birth of 30.03.1958 but later sought to change it to 20.05.1964 via an affidavit.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the correct date of birth is 30.03.1958, and the petitioner committed fraud by manipulating his date of birth.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the date of birth records and the implications of misrepresentation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the date of birth in the HSLCE certificate must be accepted, and the petitioner's actions constituted fraud, justifying the recovery of excess salary.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
Heard Mr. M Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S Chutia, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department, Mr. G Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 4 as well as Mr. RM Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
2. The petitioner’s case is that as his date of birth was recorded in his service book as 20.05.1964, the petitioner, who was an Assistant Teacher of Pub Ambikapur Kaliya LP School should have retired on 31.05.2024. However, on the basis of the impugned letter dated 27.06.2024 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Sodiya, Chapakhowa the petitioner was made to retire w.e.f. 30.03.2018, on the ground that his Court affidavit, HSLCE admit card and certificate proved that the petitioner’s date of birth was actually 30.03.1958. The petitioner was also asked to refund the excess salary drawn by him for overstaying in his service from 01.04.2018 to 30.04.2024.
3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner, who was having the minimum eligibility educational criteria of High School Leaving Certification Examination (HSLCE) pass for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher, the petitioner was appointed on 04.12.1998 as Assistant Teacher (stipendiary) in Pub Ambikapur Kaliya LP School on a fixed pay. The petitioner joined service on 07.12.1998. Further the petitioner passed Junior Basic Training Course on 22.11.2001 and his service was subsequently regularised vide order dated 02.07.2003.
4. The petitioner’s date of birth was recorded in his service book as 20.05.1964, on the basis of an affidavit dated 26.05.1997 executed by the petitioner’s elder brother, Sri Dibya Gogoi, who stated that the petitioner was born on 20.05.1964 as per the family horoscope and that his date of birth was wrongly entered in the School record as 30.03.1958 instead of 20.05.1964.
5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the petitioner’s date of birth has been accepted by the authorities as 20.05.1964, the petitioner could not have been retired prior to 31.05.2024. He further submits that as the petitioner has worked till 30.04.2024, there cannot be recovery of excess salary for overstay in service, in terms of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) , reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334
6. Ms. S Chutia, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department, on the other hand, submits that besides the letter dated 27.06.2024 issued to the petitioner, the petitioner was heard in person on 16.12.2024 in the office of the Director, Elementary Education, Assam in connection with his date of birth. The proceedings in the hearing held on 16.12.2024 in the office of the Director, Elementary Education, Assam shows that the petitioner had admitted that in his HSLCE Admit Card, the petitioner’s date of birth was 30.03.1958 and that the date of birth had been changed to 20.05.1964, on the basis of an affidavit. She also submits that there is no averment made by the petitioner in the writ petition, to the effect that the petitioner had applied for correction of his date of birth in his HSLCE Admit Card and Certificate, with the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. As such, the petitioner had himself accepted his correct date of birth to be 30.03.1958. She submits that as there has been misrepresentation and fraud in relation to the date of birth recorded in the Service Book on the part of the petitioner, at the time of opening of his service book, there is no error in the State respondents directing the petitioner to refund the excess salary paid to the petitioner, for overstay in service.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. The facts of the case, as can be culled out from the submissions made by the counsels for the parties and the averments made in the pleadings, show that the minimum
The court held that the date of birth in a matriculation certificate is authoritative over an affidavit, and manipulative actions for personal gain constitute fraud.
The date of birth recorded in the H.S.L.C.E. Certificate is authoritative for retirement purposes, and recovery of excess salary for overstaying must consider shared negligence.
Service - Retirement benefits - Not entitled for - Petitioner appears to be not bona-fide and a wrong doer cannot claim the privilege of his own wrongful conduct and it will be wholly unjustified one....
The original date of birth recorded in a government employee's service book is deemed correct for all purposes, overriding any subsequent alterations.
A unilateral change in an employee's recorded date of birth, impacting pension benefits, violates natural justice principles, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The court upheld that recorded dates of birth in service books cannot be altered at the end of an employee's service, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines.
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
