SOHMATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) DATE of birth of the husband of the petitioner is in dispute. According to the case of the petitioner, the date of birth of her husband as recorded in service book is 15.12.1939 and he entered into service under the respondents on 24.11.1967 on the post of chowkidar. It is further case of the petitioner that according to the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner entered in the service book, he could have superannuated w.e.f. 31st December, 1999 but on the contrary he was asked to superannuate w.e.f. 1.7.1994. It is also the case of the petitioner that vide order as contained in Annexure 1 the husband of the petitioner was served with a notice showing that he will be deemed to have superannuated w.e.f. 1.7.1999 though the notice dated 16.8.1999 was served on him on that day and the husband of the petitioner continued to work under the respondents till 16th August, 1999.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that in the service book certain interpolations were detected by the authorities and, therefore, the same was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and the Forensic Science Laboratory, on examination of service book, reported vide Annexure B to the counter affidavit that certain interpolations have been made in the service book by making 1934 as 1939 and on that basis the respondent -board directed the husband of the petitioner that he will be deemed to have superannuated w.e.f. 1.7.1994. Mr. Dutt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), with reference to the counter affidavit, submitted that firstly in view of the entry made in the service book about the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner as 1939, an order was issued from Personnel department of the respondent board and information was sent to the husband of the petitioner that he superannuated w.e.f. 1.7.1999 and only when the retiral dues were being calculated for necessary payment, the interpolation in the service book was detected and ultimately it was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and consequent upon the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as referred to above, another office order was issued vide order as contained in Annexure 1/A informing the husband of the petitioner that according to his date of birth i.e. 1934 he superannuated w.e.f. 1.7.1994.