BRAJENDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.N. Diwakar for the petitioner, Mr. V.N. Sinha, earned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Zila Parishad, Madhepura), and Mr. Chandeshwar Jha, earned Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (Zila Parishad, Saharsa).

(2.) This writ petition has been preferred for an appropriate direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to pay to the petitioner the salary for the period July 1996 to July 1998, and also seeks quashing of the impugned order bearing memo No. 34, dated 16.1.99 (Annexure 7), whereby it has been held that the petitioner shall be deemed to have retired from the services of respondent No. 2 with effect from 31.12.1994, and he has been called upon to refund the salary overdrawn by him for the period January 1995 to June 1996, for the reason that the petitioner has interpolated in the service records initially maintained by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and thereafter by respondent Nos. 2 and 4.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he had joined the services of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 24.7.1958 as evidenced by the letter of appointment No. 3002, dated 24.7.1958 (Annexure 1), which is a typed copy of the original letter of appointment. The document marked Annexure 2 to the writ petition is also a typed copy of letter dated 24.7.1958, which appears to be the certificate of medical examination by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Madhepura, saying that "his age according to his own statement 19 years and by appearance about 19 years." The erstwhile district of Saharsa was bifurcated into two districts and the district of Madhepura was carved out of the undivided district of Saharsa with effect from 7.10.1982. The petitioner's services were thereafter transferred to the District Board, Madhepura. According to the petitioner, he was transferred to Kudratullah Unani Dwakhana, Madhepura, by letter of transfer dated 14.10.96, marked Annexure 4 to the writ petition, which is once again a typed copy of the letter of transfer. Pursuant to the transfer order, the petitioner continued to work up to July 1998. His salary for the period July 1996 to July, 1998 has not till date been paid, and prays for a direction to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to pay the same. The petitioner's further case is that the petitioner has suddenly been visited with the impugned order bearing memo No. 34, dated 16.1.99 (Annexure 7), issued by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, whereby it has been held that the petitioner interpolated with his service records. According to the original service records, his date of joining the services of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is 26.7.1956, which has by interpolation been changed to 26.7.1958. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have, thereafter, found that according to the service record, the petitioner was 19 years of age on 26.6.56, 58 years of age being the age of superannuation in the service of respondent Nos. 2 and 5, he reached the age of superannuation on 31.12.94, and his continuance in service thereafter is attributed to the forgery committed by him in the original records. Therefore, he has by the impugned order been directed to refund the salary for the period January 1995 to June 1996. Hence the writ petition.