STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. RADHIKA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-State of Jharkhand has challenged order dated 31.07.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5028 of 2006 whereby, order dated 25.09.2001 communicating the respondent that he stood retired w.e.f. 31.01.1999 and order dated 19.12.2005 whereby, recovery of salary etc. paid to him after 31.01.1999 was ordered from the respondent, were quashed.

(2.) The facts, as pleaded by the respondent in the writ petition are that, he was appointed as Road Roller Driver on 01.06.1970 and his date of birth in the service book was recorded as 20.01.1947. By letter dated 25.09.2001 the respondent was informed that he has superannuated from service w.e.f 31.01.1999. Thereafter, another communication dated 31.01.2003 was issued to the respondent to the same effect. Challenging the communication dated 31.01.2003, the respondent moved the High Court in W.P.(S) No. 5659 of 2003 which was disposed of by order dated 21.11.2003 with an observation that the respondent shall be paid admitted retiral dues, legally payable to him, including salary for the period till he worked. This Court declined to interfere with the order of superannuation however, it was left open for the respondent to get his date of birth adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. The respondent thereafter, filed Title Suit No. 66 of 2004 seeking declaration that his correct date of birth is 20.01.1947 and accordingly, he would be entitled for service benefits. In the mean-time, by order dated 19.12.2005 recovery of salary etc. paid to the respondent between the period 01.02.1999 and March, 2001, was ordered. The Title Suit was decreed and an ex-parte order dated 02.01.2006 was passed declaring 20.01.1947 as the correct date of birth of the respondent. Since, an order of recovery was made vide order dated 19.12.2005, the respondent approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5028 of 2006 which was allowed by the impugned order dated 31.07.2012.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed before the Writ Court as also in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand, a plea has been taken that, since there was interpolation in the service-book of the respondent an enquiry was instituted in the matter and it has been found that, in fact, the date of birth of the respondent would be 20.01.1941. A legal opinion was sought from the Government Advocate who, however, on the basis of horoscope produced by the respondent himself opined that the date of birth of the respondent should be 20.01.1947. However, by order dated 25.09.2001, the respondent was made to superannuate w.e.f. 31.01.1999. The appellants specifically denied that initially in the service-book, the date of birth of the respondent was recorded as 20.01.1941. Since, the respondent continued to work till March, 2001 illegally, by order dated 19.12.2005, recovery of salary etc. paid to him after 31.01.1999 was ordered.