TELESFER ORAON Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, JHARKHAND, RANCHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working as Chowkidar. Photocopy of the service book record (Annexure C to the counter affidavit) of the petitioner reveals that initially, no date of birth was written therein.

(2.) District Welfare Officer, Gumla was directed to hold an enquiry about the correct date of birth of the petitioner. On the basis of the recommendation made by District Welfare Officer, vide order dated 02.04.1986, petitioner's date of birth was accepted as 02.05.1937 (Annexure 1). Petitioner, who was earlier made to retire with effect from 01.05.1984, was reinstated in the service, vide order dated 02.04.1986 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition).Thereafter, vide letter dated 10.10.1991 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), petitioner was asked to produce the document to prove his date of birth. Meanwhile, vide order dated 04.11.1991 (Annexure 3), petitioner was granted benefit of second time bound promotion. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 07.10.1993 (Annexure 4), Deputy Director, Welfare, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi having observed that petitioner, on the basis of the fictitious date of birth certificate as was produced by him, was allowed to work after 01.05.1984. Therefore, petitioner would be treated to have been retired with effect from 01.05.1984 and his pension would be fixed considering him having retired with effect from 01.05.1984. It was further directed that excess amount paid to the petitioner after 01.05.1984 to be recovered from the petitioner. Undisputedly, petitioner was unskilled labour working as Chowkidar. Undisputedly, in the service record, initially , no date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned. Undisputedly, District Welfare Officer, after the enquiry, had recommended to treat the date of birth of the petitioner as 02.05.1937. Undisputedly, on the recommendation of the District Welfare Officer, vide order dated 02.04.1986, petitioner was allowed to work. No document is placed on the record to show that petitioner had ever produced fabricated, fictitious or bogus date of birth certificate. No such bogus certificate is placed on record by the department. Petitioner was allowed to work and he had worked till 16.08.1992, therefore, without holding any enquiry to find out the genuineness of the certificate, order impugned seems to be totally unjustified. Since petitioner was allowed to work and he has actually worked and was paid second time bound promotion, therefore, withdrawal of monetary benefits granted to the petitioner under the time bound promotion scheme, without any solid evidence, seems to be totally unjustified.