- (1.) This appeal had been preferred by the erstwhile State of Bihar, now the State of Jharkhand, against the judgment and order dated 6.2.1996 by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to allow the writ petition in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent herein and directed the appellant-State to pay the amount of salary for the period ranging from 1.7.1994 to 11.4.1998 which was the period during which the writ petitioner-respondent was treated to be in service on the ground that he was wrongly made to retire on 30.6.1994.
(2.) Relevant facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal indicate that the respondent (petitioner before the learned Single Judge) filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 3116 of 1995(R) assailing the order dated 1.9.1995 by which the writ petitioner-respondent had been directed to refund the salary for the period of 16.6.1988 to 30.6.1994 on the ground that as per his date of birth which, according to the appellant-State, should have been 1930, he ought to have retired in the year 1988. The respondent-petitioner had also prayed for a direction upon the respondent-State, appellant herein, to correct his date of birth in the service book.
(3.) The learned Single Judge on scrutiny of the facts in regard to the date of birth noted that the respondent s date of birth although is stated to be 1930 as per the version of the appellant-State, his date of birth recorded in the service book was 1936. But the learned Single Judge held that his date of birth in the service book was not fit to be relied as his date on birth in the gradation list was shown as 1940, meaning thereby that his service book where the respondent s date of birth was recorded as 1936 was not relied upon and the date of birth as shown in the gradation list as 1940 was taken to be his correct date of birth. But, it appears that the respondent in the meantime had retired from service as Class-IV servant, taking his date of birth to be 1936, as a result of which he retired on 30th June, 1994. However, the appellant-State initially insisted that the respondent s date of birth should have been 1930 and according to the averment of the appellant-State he should have retired before 1994 i.e. he should have retired in 1988 itself. On this averment, the appellant-State had issued an order against the respondent directing him to refund the salary which he had received for discharging the duties beyond 1988 i.e. upto 30th June, 1994. The learned Single Judge struck down this order of the appellant-State and held that he could not have been directed to retire in the year 1988 as his date of birth ought to have been taken to be 1940 as per the gradation list. In view of this finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, he was pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 1.9.1995 by which the respondent had been directed to refund the amount which he had drawn by way of salary from 1988 upto 30th June, 1994, during which he had duly discharged his duties.;