INDU BHUSHAN KAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
LAWS(GAU)-1994-7-3
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on July 19,1994

INDU BHUSHAN KAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TRFPURA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SULOCHANA DEVI BABUA VS. GOBINDA CHANDRA NAG [REFERRED TO]
PONNUSWAMI GOUNDAN AND ANOTHER VS. KALYANASUNDARA IYER AND OTHERS,RESPONDENTS [REFERRED TO]
P C PURUSHOTHAMA REDDIAR VS. S PERUMAL [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED YUSUF VS. D [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. GHULAM SARWAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The suit which has given rise to this First Appeal was filed by the plaintiff, appellant herein on 15-9-93 in the court of learned Subordinate Judge, West Tripura for a decree declaring that he was in continuous service till the end of May, 1982 and also for a decree; that he was entitled to get a sum of Rs.19,716.89 P. as pay and allowances for the period from 1-11-79 till the end of May, 1982 on the allegation that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in his service book.
(2.)The appellant's case was that some time in the year 1954 he joined as work charged Assistant under the Pubic Works Department, Government of Tripura and thereafter in the year 1982 the post held by him was made regular along with other work charged posts under the P.W.D. While the appellant was serving under the P.W.D. his service book was qpened in the Office of the P.W.D. and his date of birth was recorded as 6th Baisakh, 1328 B.S. corresponding to 21-4-1921 A. D. The appellant alleged that he never; gave his date of birth as 6th Baisakh 1328 B.S. at the time when his service book was opened. According to him his date of birth was put in the relevant column of the service book behind his back and his date of birth was never verified and as such on the basis of the aforesaid date of birth his date of superannuation cannot be determined. The appellant, therefore, approached the authority for correction of his date of birth and accordingly he was asked by a letter dated 20-4-78 to produce the certificate of education for verifying his date of birth and incompliance thereof he submitted his School Certificate. The appellant stated that as per the School Certificate his date of birth was 14-4-27 and as such his date of superannuation would be 14-4-1985. But even though he submitted the certificate indicating his date of birth he was forced to retire on 19-4-79 A.D. with subsequent extension for 6 months 11 days. He further alleged that his emoluments for 1 month 4 days were not paid during the period of extension and even though he approached the authority repeatedly he got no relief and hence he filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
(3.)The State of Tripura resisted the suit by filing a written statement. It denied all the material averments of the plaint and contended further mat the appellant at first joined as work charged Work Assistant under the S.D.O. (W&B), Champaknagar Sub-Division on 1-8-54 on a consolidated pay of Rs 75/- which was subsequently revised to Rs. 50-1-62-2-80 with effect from the said date. It was contended that the service book of the appellant was opened between 1 -8-54 to 1-7-57 and his date of birth was recorded as 6th Baisakh, 1328 B.S. on the first page of the service roll and the aforesaid entry with respect to his date of birth was also attested by the appellant who put his signature against item No. 10. It was further averred that during his entire carrier of service the appellant never raised any sort of question with respect to his date of birth. But whenhis retirement was imminent he suddenly submitted a letter on 17-3-78 to Executive Engineer, Northern Division for correcting his date of birth. That prayer was rejected by the Superintending Engineer by his communication dated 13-8-79. The appellant was however asked to produce requisite certificate of education containing his date of birth and accordingly the appellant submitted a certificate issued by the Head Master, Yusuf M.T. High School Comilla indicating that as per record his date of birth was 14-4-27. On getting this certificate the respondents made some queries regarding the authenticity of that certificate when the appellant submitted a reply by his letter dated 29-10-79. But the information furnished by his aforesaid letter dated 29-10-79 did not correspond to the aforesaid certificate and hence the respondents rejected to accept that certificate as an authentic document.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.