Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
B.R. SARANGI, J.
Bijay Shankar Sarangi – Petitioner
Versus
Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Bhubaneswar and Others – Opposite Parties
W.P. (C) No. 15102 of 2005
Decided On : 03-03-2016
Natural Justice - Date of Birth Discrepancy - OGFR Vol-I - State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei - V. Parukutty Mannadissiar - [O.S.R.T.C. Driver - 11.2.1940, 18.11.1933 - OGFR Vol-I, State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, V. Parukutty Mannadissiar] - The court discussed the discrepancy in the petitioner's date of birth, the unilateral change by the employer, and the violation of natural justice. It referenced the principles of natural justice and the need for due opportunity before changing the date of birth entry in the service book. The court quashed the order and remitted the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Driver at O.S.R.T.C., sought to quash an order changing his date of birth and his premature retirement, alleging violation of natural justice. The Civil Judge found the retirement order violative of natural justice and directed an inquiry. The authority changed the date of birth and retired the petitioner, leading to the present writ application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found non-compliance with principles of natural justice in changing the date of birth entry and retiring the petitioner prematurely, quashing the order and remitting the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the law.
Issues: Discrepancy in date of birth entry, violation of natural justice, premature retirement, compliance with Civil Judge's direction, and applicability of legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that changing the date of birth entry without due opportunity violated natural justice, referencing the State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei case and the need for compliance with principles of natural justice before administrative actions with civil consequences.
Final Decision: The order changing the date of birth and retiring the petitioner prematurely was quashed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. Sarangi, J.
1. The petitioner, who was working as a Driver in the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as O.S.R.T.C.) has filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 28.6.2005 passed by the opposite party no.3-District Transport Manager (A), O.S.R.T.C. Sambalpur and further seeking for a declaration that his date of birth is 11.2.1940 and he has to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.2.2000 and also to grant consequential benefits along with interest within a stipulated time.
2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation vide letter no.737 dated 30.1.1968 and joined as such on 5.2.1968. His date of birth was entered in the service book as 11.2.1940 as per the OGFR Vol-I and such entry has been done by the then D.T.M. (Administration). The petitioner also signed the service book as a token of his acceptance of the entries. Therefore, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has to retire from service on 28.2.2000 at the age of 60 years, but he has been retired from service on 12.12.1995 without any prior notice. Treating such premature retirement as removal from service, the petitioner has approached this Court earlier by filing OJC No. 112 of 1995 and this Court did not feel inclined to interfere with the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 35 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sambalpur seeking for a direction that his retirement on 12.12.1995 is illegal and he is entitled to continue in service till 28.2.2000 with consequential financial benefits. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sambalpur framed as many as seven issues and while deciding issue nos. 5 and 7 came to a finding that the order of retirement passed by the authority retiring the petitioner from service on 12.12.1995 without giving opportunity of hearing is violative of natural justice. He directed the authority to conduct enquiry as to the correctness of the date of birth of the petitioner by giving opportunity of hearing to him and do the needful while considering his service benefit as per law. In compliance to the same, the authority has passed the order impugned in Annexure-1 holding that the date of birth of the petitioner is 18.11.1933 and his superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years being 30.11.1993, he has already overstayed for the period from 30.11.1993 to 12.12.1995, which is treated as non-qualifying service and during the aforesaid period he will get salary, after deducting pension as after attaining superannuation, pension will be determined and paid to him. Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.
3. Mr. Somadarshan Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the order passed by the opposite party no.3 in Annexure-1 in compliance to the direction given by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sambalpur in Title Suit No. 35 of 1998 dated 8.3.2004 cannot sustain in the eye of law inasmuch as when the date of birth entry made in the service book is 11.2.1940 and that has been changed unilaterally by the employer to 18.11.1933 and the opposite party has acted upon the same, that itself amounts to violation of natural justice, arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power by the authority concerned. Further the evidence which has been relied upon while causing inquiry in Annexure-1 has been considered and rejected by the learned Civil Judge. Therefore the same could not have been taken into consideration while passing the order impugned holding that the petitioner’s date of birth is 18.11.1933 and his superannuation is based on the basis of 30.11.1993 and he has overstayed the period from 30.11.1993 to 12.12.1995 and the same should be treated as non-qualifying service. It is further urged that the statement of the brother of the
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
