GANGA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna is directed against the order dated 5.5.2006, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2554 of 2002 (Ganga Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and others), whereby the writ application preferred by the appellant herein, seeking a direction upon the respondents to allow him to continue in service till 30.11.2002, has been rejected.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The writ petitioner joined the services of the Bihar Government in the Department of Road Construction (Mechanical wing) on 30.11.1963. He was initially appointed as Senior Mechanic Grade-I. A dispute arose about his date of birth appearing in the service records. It may be pointed out here the circle/division in which the service records of the writ petitioner was /were lying caught fire on 18.3.1974, consuming the entire service records. It is the writ petitioner's case that the Superintending Engineer (Mechanical), by communication dated 19.5.2000, passed order that his date of birth as appearing in the school leaving certificate was 3.11.1944. It appears that the writ petitioner passed Matriculation examination from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar. The authorities made enquiries from the Vidyapith, whereafter it was revealed that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the record of Hindi Vidyapith is 3.1.1942. After having ascertained the date of birth, the authorities by communication dated 31.8.2000 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) directed the authority lower to him to superannuate the petitioner with effect from 31.1.2000. Consequently, order dated 6.9.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) was passed by the respondent Executive Engineer, whereby he was made to retire with effect from 31.1.2000, leading to the present writ petition. The same was considered and dismissed by the learned Single Judge after having held as under:

(3.) While assailing the impugned order learned counsel for the appellant submits that the authorities were not justified in reviewing its own order. It is highlighted that in the order contained in Annexure-3 the said authority had earlier found and held that the date of birth of the writ petitioner was correctly entered as 3.11.1944, after reconstruction of the service records of the appellant. Subsequently the said authority reviewed the finding and came to the conclusion that his date of birth appearing in the Matriculation certificate issued by the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, was correct date of birth and accordingly he was made to retire with effect from 31.1.2000. Learned counsel further submits that in terms of the order passed by the authorities contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, he was allowed to continue in service till the date of order i.e. 6.9.2000 (Annexure-1), whereafter he was made to superannuate but the authorities have not paid the salary for the said period ,i.e. from 1.2.2000 to 5.9.2000.