STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus PANDEY JAGDISHWAR PRASAD

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 11-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-f 
_, 
• 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 297 
...( 
' 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
A 
'~~ 
v. 
.. 
PANDEY JAGDISHWAR PRASAD 
(Civil Appeal No. 7237 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 11, 2008 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
,..,,-
Service Law- Retirement- Superannuation- Two dates 
of birth (DOB) of employee recorded in his service book -
Employee superannuated on the basis of the later DOB - c 
_j 
Thereafter held by Court that the employee was to be 
--:: 
superannuated on the basis of previous DOB as the same 
was based on matriculation certificate - Order of employer 
directing recovery of the amount paid as salary beyond his 
due date of superannuation - Propriety of - Held : The D 
' 
employee is Jo be superannuated on the basis of DOB as 
~ ). 
mentioned in matriculation certificate - However, the 
deduction of amount paid beyond the due date of 
superannuation is not permissible as the employee was 
allowed to work beyond the date of superannuation and there 
E 
is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of 
the employee - Direction for fixing retiral benefits without 
taking into account the period beyond due date of 
superannuation. 
In the service book of the respondent-employee, two 
F 
... 
.. 
.,._ 
dates of birth were recorded viz. 11-2-1944 and 11.:2-1946 . 
Respondent retired' on reaching superannuation 
according to the date of birth 11-2-1946, i.e. on 29.2.2004. 
Pursuant to an order that the respondent should have 
G 
been retired on 28-2-2002 on the basis of his date of birth 
11-2-1944 which was based on his matriculation' 
... 
+--
certificate, the appellant passed an order directing 
" 
recovery of the excess amount drawn by the respondent. 
-
Respondent filed a writ petition challenging the order 
297 
H 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. e 
A directing deduction. The petitioh was dismissed by High 
Court. The Division Bench of High Court allowed the 
r·-< 
intra-court appeal and directed the appellant to return the 
amount already recovered with interest. Hence the 
.. 
present appeal. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
., 
HELD: 1.1. It is true that the date of birth mentioned 
in the Matriculation Certificate should be treated as the 
-r--.... 
date of birth of the respondent. But it would be open to 
I 
c the employee to place documents before the authorities 
l.-
that the date of birth shown in ~he service book taken from 
the matriculation certificate was incorrect. There has been 
no such document placed on' record to corroborate the 
same, except an affidavit sworn-by the respondent, which 
D 
is on record. Therefore, the respondent ought to have 
~ 
retired on 28th of February,, 2002, on the basis of his 
),.
matriculation certificate which shows his date of birth as 
11th of February, 1944 as recorded in his service book. 
,A--' 
> 
[Para 9] [303-D-F] 
~ 
~ 
E 
r 
1.2. The Division Bench of High Court had mentioned 
:;.... 
that there was no allegation qf misrepresentation or fraud 
. 
purported to have been perpetrated by the appellant. 
Such being the position and in the absence of any 
F 
allegation ofthe misrepresentation or fraud made by the 
appellant, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise-the 
allegation of misrepresentation or fraud for the first time 
~-
~ 
in this Court. Moreover, even if it is considered that the 
respondent had fraudulently'entered another date of birth 
I 
' 
in his service book, as had .been alleged, it should have 
\ 
G come to the notice of the authorities during his course 
of service, and not after ~e had attained the age of 
J 
superannuation after the expiry of the date mentioned in 
·---+ 
... 
the service book which was based on the affidavit of the 
~ 
I 
respondent. [Paras 9 and 1 O] [304-B-C-D] 
H 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. PANDEY JAGDISHWAR 
299 
PRASAD 
1.3. The respondent cannot be held responsible to A 
>-·...., 
work beyond his date of birth as mentioned in the 
matriculation certificate when admittedly in the service 
book after affidavit, some other date of birth was also 
evident. [Para 1 O] [304-F] 
2.1. The appellant alleged that the respondent had 8 
entered a second date of birth in his service book at a 
later period of time. If .at all the respondent entered the 
... ~-
second date of birth at a subsequent period of time, the 
authorities concerned should have detected it and there c 
should have been a detailed enquiry to determine 
whether the respondent was responsible for the same . 
.. 
Even if by mistake, high

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.