IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER :

(MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.)

1. Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned letter dated 08.08.2024 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Sadiya Chapakhua, by which the petitioner had been directed to retire from service on 30.09.2020 in terms of his date of birth recorded in his High School Leaving Examination Certificate and Admit Card. By the said letter, the petitioner was also requested to return the monthly salary received from 01.10.2020 to 30.06.2024 or else, his pension documents were not going to be processed.

3. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner passed the H.S.L.C. examination in the year 1980 under the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. However in the H.S.L.C.E. Certificate and Admit Card, his birth was wrongly recorded as nineteen years six months and 0 days as on 01.03.1980. The same therefore meant that the petitioner’s date of birth, in terms of his H.S.L.C.E. Certificate and Admit Card was 01.09.1960. The petitioner’s further case is that his correct date of birth was 13.01.1965.

4. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant teacher of Nabajyoti L.P. School on temporary basis for three months under the Sadiya Education Block on 06.05.1994, which was a provincialised school. He joined the service on 06.05.1994 till regularisation of his service, vide order dated 08.06.1995.

5. In the petitioner’s Service Book (PART-II), the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 31.01.1965. Thereafter an affidavit dated 15.03.1999 was executed by the petitioner’s father before the Executive Magistrate, Sadiaya, declaring the petitioner’s date of birth as “13.01.1965”.

6. While the petitioner was serving in the said school, the respondent no.7 issued a letter dated 06.08.2024, informing the petitioner that as per the Admit Card and his school leaving certificate, his date of retirement was 30.09.2020, as his date of birth was 01.09.1960.

7. The impugned order dated 08.08.2024 was then issued, informing the petitioner that he was to retire from service on 30.09.2020 and he was requested to return the monthly salary received from 01.10.2020 to 30.06.2024, due to overstay in service. There is a mistake in the contents of the letter dated 06.08.2024 and 08.08.2024, inasmuch as, the date of retirement should be 31.08.2020, if the petitioner’s date of birth was 01.09.1960. However, the said anomaly is not being gone into further by this Court and the date of retirement of the petitioner, as recorded in the above 2 letters is being considered as it is.

8. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner’s actual date of birth being 13.01.1965, as recorded in the Service Book of the petitioner, the petitioner’s date of birth could not be taken to be 01.09.1960 by the State respondents, on the basis of his H.S.L.C.E. certificate and the Admit Card. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 08.08.2024 should be set aside.

9. Mr. P.K. Bora, learned Standing Counsel Elementary Education Department, on the other hand submits that the date of birth of the petitioner was not recorded in the petitioner’s Service Book (PART-I). However, in the petitioner’s service book (PART-II), the petitioner’s date of birth is recorded as 13.01.1965, on the basis of the petitioner’s father’s affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate in the year 1999. He submits that after issuing a notice to the petitioner, a hearing was held in the office of the Director of the Elementary Education in relation to the petitioner’s overstay in service. The counsel submits that as there has been a misrepresentation by the petitioner with regard to his date of birth, which resulted in the petitioner’s overstay in service, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit and the wr