S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. - (1.) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioner against the orders, contained in Memo No. 1909 dated 29th May, 2002 and District Order No. 1105/2002 dated 24th June, 2002, whereby and whereunder, it was directed to recover the excess salary paid to the petitioner between 1st May, 2000 to 31st January, 2002, from his retiral benefits.
(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 21st April, 1964 and retired on 31st January, 2002 from the post of Sub Inspector of Police. After his retirement, when the respondents took up the matter for payment of his retiral benefits, it came to their notice that his date of birth was corrected as 1st April, 1944, vide Lohardaga District Order No. 542 of 1992 and on that basis, the petitioner was allowed to continue upto 31st January, 2002. The DIG of Police, Human Rights, Jharkhand found that the correction of his date of birth was made after about 28 years of petitioner's service by the S.P., Lohardaga which was against the provisions of law. In this background, while he observed that the petitioner should have retired on about 30th April, 2000, ordered that the excess salary paid to him should be recovered by its letter No. 1909 dated 29th May, 2002. It followed by the consequential order issued by the S.R. Dhanbad, contained in District Order No. 1105/2002 for recovery of excess amount from the retiral benefits. The ground taken by the respondents is that the date of birth can be changed within ten years from the date of appointment as per Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules, 1950 read with Rule 1041(B) of the Bihar Police Manual. In this background, the change of date of birth made by the then S.P., Lohardaga, vide Lohardaga District Order No. 542 of 1992 has been held to be illegal.
(3.) IT may be mentioned that the S.P., Dhanbad being an authority of equivalent rank had no jurisdiction to declare an order issued by the S.P., Lohardaga as illegal.;