RAMBILASH DUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HOWEVER , case of the respondents as has been made out in the counter affidavit is that when the pension papers were forwarded to the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna for final fixation of the pension and gratuity, it was found by the Accountant General that date of birth has been recorded at page 1 of the service book as 28.5.1939 over which there has been overwriting whereas leave account statement attached with the service book shows that the date of birth as 20.5.1934 and, therefore, Accountant General returned the service book of the petitioner for necessary verification and correction and thereupon petitioner was asked by respondent no.5, Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Banaso, Hazaribagh to make available the proof of date of birth but the petitioner failed to do so and then Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Birpur was also requested to make available document showing date of birth of the petitioner but when no reply was received, Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, respondent no.3 directed the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Banaso, Hazaribagh vide his letter (Annexure C) to forward the pension paper showing date of birth of the petitioner as 20.5.1934. Accordingly, respondent no.5 made request to the Accountant General to fix final pension and gratuity of the petitioner taking his date of birth as 20.5.1934 and at the same time Respondent no.5 wrote a letter (Annexure 5) to Sub -Treasury Officer, Tenughat to recover excess amount of Rs.16,136/ -paid to the petitioner as leave salary.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the petitioner was allowed to get retired on 20.5.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years taking the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.5.1939 but subsequently on being pointed out by the office of Accountant General about the discrepancy of the date of birth recorded in the service book as 20.5.1939 suspected to be manipulated by overwriting not tallying with the date of birth recorded as 20.5.1934 in the leave account statement the date of birth recorded as 20.5.1939 was taken to be incorrect date of birth without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter, though, according to the counter affidavit, the petitioner was called upon by giving letter to explain in this regard but there has been no proof that such letter had ever been received by the petitioner. Further it appears that respondent no.5 in order to make enquiry with respect to date of birth also wrote letter to District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur but respondent no.5 without getting any positive reply took the decision that the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.5.1934 instead of 20.5.1939. In this respect, it may further be noted that the petitioner has annexed transfer certificate as Annexure 6 to the writ application showing date of birth as 20.5.1939.

(3.) UNDER the circumstances, the order passed by the respondent regarding date of birth of the petitioner being 20.5.1934 and the subsequent order under which Rs.16,136/ -was sought to be recovered under Annexure 5 are hereby set aside for the simple reason that before passing such order, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard in the matter.