SADANANDA SEN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against two Orders one, dated 30th September, 1982 issued by the District Compensation Officer, Purulia, superannuating the petitioner on 30th September, 1982 on attaining the age of 60 years and another, dated 31st January/4th February, 1983 rejecting the recommendation of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Purulia, for the correction of the date of birth of the petitioner issued by the Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of West Bengal.

(2.) The petitioner's case, in short, is that he was appointed as Karmachari under the Land Reforms Commissioner, State of Bihar, at Purulia in the district of Manbhum with effect from 7th September. 1948 and thereafter he was appointed as Compen-sation Mohurrir in Purulia under the Board of Revenue, State at West Bengal, after the reorganisation of States. By a Memo, dated 22nd July, 1980 the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Purulia informed him that he was due to retire with effect from 30th September, 1980 after attaining the age of 58 years and, as such, he was asked to complete the formalities in connection with the pension papers, etc. On receiving the -aid Memo the petitioner made a representation, dated 30th July, 1980 stating that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded as 8th September, 1922 instead of 1st August, 1924 and as such his date of birth in the Service Book should be corrected. He also enclosed with the said representation two copies of certificates one, a Middle School Certificate issued by the Inspector of Schools, Chotanagpur Division, Department of Public Instruction, Bihar and Orissa, and another a School Leaving Certificate issued by the Headmaster of D.P M. High School, Rajnowagar, District Purulia, both testifying that the petitioner would attain superannuation on 31st July, 1984. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Purulia, by Memo, dated 4th September, 1980 recommended for consideration and correction of the age of the petitioner in the Service Book after making necessary enquiries. The petitioner too made a representation, dated 29th September, 1980 to the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of West Bengal, praying for the correction of age in the Service Book. The Deputy Commissioner, Purulia, by his Memo, dated 3rd, July, 1982 addressed to the Commissioner, Burdwan Division, stated that the Admission Register of the school concerned was duly verified by the Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector who also happens to be the Officer-in-Charge of Land Reforms and the School Register reveals in Serial No. 7 that the petitioner had been enrolled as a student and his date of birth is 1st August, 1924. The Additional Deputy Commissioner forwarded original certificate of the petitioner to the Commissioner, Burdwan Division, by a special messenger. Then by a Memo, dated 25th August, 1982 the Commissioner, Burdwan Division, recommended to the Secretary, Board of Revenue, for the necessary correction of the Service Book of the petitioner and forwarded his Service Book along with his recommendation. Strangely by the impugned Memo, dated 30th September, 1982 the petitioner was superannuated at the stage of 60 years as an Ex-Bihar employee and by the impugned Memo, dated 31st January/4th February, 1983 the proposal of the Addl. Dy. Commissioner was also rejected by the Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue.

(3.) Mr. Banerjee the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that on production of the original Middle School Certificate from the Inspector of Schools, Chotanagpur Division, Department of Public Instruction, Bihar and Orissa, and the School Leaving Certificate of the D.P.M. High School the Admission Register of which was duly verified by a Competent Officer and on that basis the Additional Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Purulia as well as the Commissioner of Burdwan Division recommended the case of the petitioner for the correction of the date of birth in the Service Book from 8th September, 1922 to 1st August, 1924 but the Board of Revenue rejected the Additional Deputy Commissioner's Memo of 3rd,Tuly, thereby not accepting the recommendations of the three high officials of the Government of West Bengal. He further submitted that the impugned Memo of rejection by the Board of Revenue is not a reasoned Order. Mr. Banerjee cited two decisions in support of his contentions, namely, 87 C.W.N. 713 (Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee vs. Union of India & Ors.) and 1979 (2) C.L.J. 428 (Sisu Ranjan Das vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.). On the basis of the aforesaid decisions Mr. Banerjee submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the petitioner who has already been superannuated is entitled to get service benefits in accordance with law on the basis of his date of superannuation as on 31st July, 1984.