Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN
Falguni Rai, S/o Late Chako Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the impugned Memo No.6903 dated 21.12.2021 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), issued by the Director, Directorate of Urban Administration, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby an order has been passed to recover the salary drawn by the petitioner for the period 01.07.2014 to 30.09.2021 (87 months) i.e. the period which according to the respondents, the petitioner has worked beyond his actual date of superannuation. Further, by virtue of the aforesaid order, the respondents had directed to lodge an F.I.R. against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the actual dispute raised by the respondents is in respect of the date of birth (D.O.B.) of the petitioner. As per him, the actual D.O.B. of the petitioner is 30.06.1964, as per the Matriculation certificate. The said Matriculation certificate, according to the petitioner, was issued by the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as “BSEB”) and it is not the case of any of the pa
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.
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 held that the date of birth in a matriculation certificate is authoritative over an affidavit, and manipulative actions for personal gain constitute fraud.
An employee cannot be denied remuneration for work performed due to a clerical error regarding the date of birth, as it constitutes unconstitutional begar under Article 23 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that requests for correction of date of birth at the fag end of a career must be supported by irrefutable proof and evidence of real injustice, and....
Recovery from the salaries for the period of overstay was unjustified due to the petitioners' good faith service and the authorities' failure to detect discrepancies in their dates of birth.
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
