High Court · 2009

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the decis ion of the respondent authorities to retire him from service with effect from 30 .06.2009 on the basis of his altered date of birth, i.e. on 01.07.1949. I have heard Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and M r. Ghosh, learned State Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner’s pleaded case is that, he was initially appointe d as a Contract Weaver in the year 1971 in the Handloom and Textile Department, Government of Assam and thereafter, following a selection process he was appoint ed as a Master Weaver at the Handloom Research and Designing Centre, Guwahati on 30.09.1981 and has been serving as such since then till date. According to him , at the time of his entry in the service as Master Weaver, his date of birth wa s recorded as 01.07.1954 in his Service Book and consequently his date of retire ment ought to have been 30.06.2014 on completion of 60 years in terms of the ret irement age. The petitioner having applied for loan from his GPF Account on 03.0 2.2009, the respondents informed him that no loan could be granted to him on the ground that he would be retiring from service on 30.06.2009 on attaining the ag e of 60 years. The petitioner was shocked and surprised, as according to him, h aving regard to his date of birth recorded in the Service Book, he was supposed to retire only in the year 2014. It was thereafter, that after scrutiny of his Service Book that he came to learn that his date of birth in the meanwhile, had been altered to 01.07.1949. As his repeated appeals to the respondent authoriti es to restore his date of birth as 01.07.1954 failed to evoke any response, he i s before this Court. The respondent No.2 in his affidavit has in substance pleaded th at the correction of the date of birth of the petitioner from 01.07.1954 to 01.0 7.1949 had been on the basis of his school certificate and after affording due o pportunity to him to participate in the related process. The answering responden t has denied the petitioner’s contention of being unaware of the alteration till he had gone through the Service Book following the rejection of his request for loan in the year 2009. According to the respondent, the altered date of birth w as amongst others reflected in the Identity Card issued to him on 05.04.1993. I t has been further highlighted that the petitioner has mentioned his date of bir th as 08.12.1945 and 08.12.1954 in obtaining his two PAN cards bearing No.ACBPD 0383 L and No.ajfpd 0185R on the basis of which he has submitted Income Tax retu rns for the period 2006-2007 and 2005-2006, respectively. The respondent has ass erted that inspite of repeated orders, the petitioner had also failed to produce the school certificate on the basis of which his date of birth had been initial ly recorded as 01.07.1954. The above averments have been refuted by the petitioner in his r eply affidavit in which he inter alia has categorically denied the claim of the respondent to have permitted him to participate in the process leading to the al teration of his date of birth. There is no manner of doubt that initially at the time of entry in service, the date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded as 01.07.1954 on the basis of the particulars furnished by him. The extract of his Service Bo ok (Annexure-C to the writ petition) demonstrates in clear terms that the change thereof to 01.07.1949 had been on the basis of a school certificate. The mutil ation of the year 1954 and the substitution thereof as 1949 however, does not co ntain the initial of the maker. There is nothing to indicate as well, that the same was brought to the notice of the petitioner at that point of time. Be tha t as it may, the petitioner has not disputed the issuance of the identity card t o him (Annexure-F to the affidavit-in-opposition) on 05.04.1993, which mentions his date of birth to be 01.07.1949. It is, therefore, difficult for this Court to conclude that the petitioner had been unaware of the alteration of his date o f birth till February, 2009 as is sought to be asserted in the instant proceedin g. This of course does not establish that he participated in the process initiat ed by the respondent authorities prior to the alteration. Having regard to the fact that the initial date of birth of the petitioner had been altered to his prejudice it is essential to ascertain as to whether he had been afforded any opportunity to partake in the process for the a ction of the respondents to be valid in law. The materials on record do not una mbiguously establish that the petitioner had been afforded such an opportunity. In the above view of the matter, the only course, which commends to this Court is to refer the matter back to the respondent authorities to redo the process after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. The petition is thus closed with the direction to the Director o f Handloom and Textile Department, Govt. of Assam, Guwahati to initiate a fresh process to examine the correct date of birth of the petitioner and after recordi ng the same proceed in the matter in accordance with law. It is made clear that , in the process that would be now commenced, the petitioner would be afforded a ll reasonable opportunities of putting forward his version. Any decision that w ould be taken by the respondents needless to say should be supported by reasons and a copy thereof would be communicated to the petitioner without delay. As th e date of retirement of the petitioner is 30.06.2009, the exercise should be com pleted within 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of th is order which the petitioner would submit within a week herefrom before the afo rementioned authority. No cost.