SURYA NARAIN CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The date of birth of the Petitioner recorded in the service book and supported by various other communications and documents is 29.8.1935. Petitioner was appointed as a peon under the Executive Engineer, Building Construction & Housing Department, Samastipur as it then existed. The appointment of the Petitioner was made on 13.11.1964. As per the date of birth recorded, Petitioner ought to have superannuated on 31.8.1993 but he continued in service till 31.8.1997 though it is his stand that the Respondents stopped taking work from him since May, 1997 itself. When certain controversy arose about his date of birth, the Respondents not only acted against the Petitioner by stopping him from work since May, 1997 but also decided to recover the money paid to him as salary from September, 1993 to May, 1997.

(3.) Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that since the Petitioner had worked and work was taken from him, the recovery ought not to be made provided it is held that his date of birth was 1935. He seriously contends that his actual date of birth is 1939 and not 1935 and interpolation was made in the service book by the dealing assistant because he failed to oblige him. Petitioner also produced a School Leaving Certificate showing his date of birth to be 29.8.1939 and not 1935 but all these have been brushed aside by the Respondents and illegal coercive action has been taken against him.