SATYEN TALUKDAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition is questioning the legality of the decision of the respondent authorities to retire him from service on 30.6.2012 instead of 31.7.2012 on the basis of the wrong calculation of his date of birth from the age recorded in his matriculation certificate. The facts material for disposal of the writ petition are virtually not in dispute. The petitioner used to be an officer of the Assam Civil Service and was serving as Deputy Secretary in the Education (Elementary) Department, Government of Assam when he was retired from service. He passed the High School Leaving Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam in the year 1969. In the matriculation certificate issued in connection therewith, his date of birth was not recorded, as in all the cases in those days, but what was recorded is that he was "aged 16 years 8 months on the first of March 1969". If his date of birth is to be determined on the basis of his age so entered, in terms of the principles of calculation accepted by this Court in Nagendra Nath Talukdar vs. State of Assam & Ors.,2009 1 GauLR 781, which in turn, was based on the decision of the Apex Court in Prabhu Daya Sesma vs. State of Rajasthan, 1984 4 SCC 59, undoubtedly, his date of birth is worked to be 2.7.1952. It is, however, an undisputed fact that he had obviously miscalculated his date of birth to be, and was unwittingly accepted by the respondent authorities, "1.7.1952". If the date of birth of the petitioner is correctly calculated with reference to his age as 16 years and 8 months as on 1.3.1969, it should be 2.7.1952 with the result that he would be retiring on superannuation only on 31.7.2012 and not on 30.6.2012 when he was forced to retire.

(2.) The respondent No. 6, however, issued the communication dated 9.8.2011 intimating the petitioner that he was due to retire from service on 30.6.2012 as per the record maintained by the Department of Personnel of the Government of Assam. On receipt of the communication, he submitted his representation to the respondent No. 6 on 31.12.2011 bringing to his notice that his date of birth had been wrongly computed as 1.7.1952 which should have been computed as 2.7.1952 and that his date of superannuation should, in accordance with FR 56(a), be 31.7.2012. In his representation, he had also referred to the decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Talukdar case . When this representation proved to be futile, another representation was submitted by him to the respondent No. 2 to that effect. After a year or so, after his retirement, the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 9.4.2013 informed him of his inability to correct his date of birth. In the meantime, he was prematurely retired from service purportedly on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.6.2012 i.e. one month before his due date of superannuation. Aggrieved by this, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his premature/forced retirement.

(3.) The State-respondents in the Departments of Personnel, Education (Elementary) Department and Pension and Public Grievances filed a common affidavit-in-opposition while the Finance Department filed a separate affidavit-in-opposition. According to the respondents, the petitioner had joined the Assam Civil Service (II) on 17.7.1985 and before that, he had served under the N.F. Railways as Clerk, Senior clerk and Law Assistant respectively. In the service book maintained by the NF Railways also, his date of birth was recorded as 1.7.1952 as is recorded in the service book maintained by the Government of Assam. As per the Pass Certificate of the HSLC examination supplied by him along with his original application submitted by him to the Assam Public Service Commission, he was aged 16 years and 8 months as on 1.3.1969: his date of birth is thus 1.7.1952. His pension papers had already been processed and released to him on 18.9.2012. According to the answering respondents, the request made by the petitioner for alteration of his date of birth cannot be entertained being barred by S.R. 8(c) of the Assam FR & SR, which stipulates that no such alteration can be made except in rare cases where a manifest mistake has been made and such mistake should be rectified at the earliest opportunity and the request therefore should be made, at any rate, within three years of the date of his actual superannuation. These are the contentions of the State-respondents in rejecting the request for allowing him to retire on 31.7.2012.