WP(C)/702/2018
2022 Latest Caselaw 3269 Gua

                                                                       Page No. 1/14

GAHC010008512018




                           THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
       (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)



                               W.P.(C) No. 702/2018

         Kabi Chandra Talukdar
         Amayapur, Near Gitamandir,
         H/N-38, P.O. & P.S.-Noonmati, Guwahati


                                                                .................. Petitioner

                -Versus-

          1. The State of Assam, Guwahati

          2. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation,
          Guwahati, Assam.

          3. The Superintending Engineer,
          Tezpur Circle (Irrigation), Tezpur.

          4. The Director Design, Irrigation,
          Chandmari, Guwahati, Assam.

          5. Senior Accounts Officer,
          Office of the Accountant General (A & E),
          Assam, Maidamgaon, Beltola, Guwahati.

          6. Asstt. Accounts Officer,
          Office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E),
          Assam, Guwahati.

          7. The Treasury Officer,
          New Guwahati, Treasury Office, Guwahati.
                                                                                         Page No. 2/14

             8. The Commissioner & Secretary,
             to the Government of Assam,
             Finance Department.


                                                                        ...................Respondents

Advocates :

             Petitioner                         : Mr. S. Sharma, Advocate

             Respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 7     : Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel,
                                                  Irrigation Department & Finance Department.

             Respondent nos. 5 & 6              : Mr. A. Hassan, learned Standing Counsel,
                                                 Accountant General [A & E].

             Date of Hearing & Judgment & Order : 30.08.2022



                                 BEFORE
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
                                        JUDGMENT & ORDER

In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction has sought for setting aside and quashing of an order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the respondent no. 4, whereby, the respondent no. 4 by re-fixing the date of superannuation of the petitioner as 31.01.2015 instead of 31.03.2017, as recorded in service book, has made the petitioner to retire from service on superannuation with immediate effect. By the said order, the petitioner was also directed to submit his pension papers for finalization of his pension, D.C.R.G., etc. The petitioner has also assailed a Communication bearing no. Pen-7/F/A-036888/IRRI/364/2016-17 dated 10.03.2017 issued by the respondent no. 6 wherein it is observed that the pay of the petitioner was to be re-fixed in the revised scale of pay on 01.01.1989 @ Rs. 1,165/- per month with the date of next increment as 01.01.1990. The petitioner has further challenged the Gratuity Payment Order [GPO] no. 71223984917 issued vide letter bearing no. PR-7/IRG/7/036888/2017 dated Page No. 3/14

21.11.2017 wherein it is observed that an amount of Rs. 8,84,078/- would be recovered from the D.C.R.G., arrear and future reliefs of the petitioner.

2. After serving as a casual employee in the office of the respondent no. 4, the petitioner came to be appointed as a Tracer against a transfer vacancy in the office of the respondent no. 3 in the scale of pay of Rs. 470-12-530-E.B.-12-E.B.-590-E.B.-15-680-20-800/- p.m. by an Office Order dated 30.12.1987. On receipt of the Office Order dated 30.12.1987, he joined in the post of Tracer by submitting his joining report on 07.01.1988 before the respondent no. 3. Pursuant to an Office Order dated 09.08.1989, the petitioner joined in the office of the respondent no. 4 on mutual transfer vice one Smti. Champa Borah. As per the Office Order dated 09.08.1989, the petitioner joined the office of the respondent no. 4 with the condition that he could not claim the benefit of his past services in his new place of posting for the purpose of seniority and he would be the juniormost in the office of the respondent no. 4.

3. The case that is laid, in brief, is that, according to the petitioner, when he joined the office of the respondent no. 3 on 07.01.1988, he submitted all his testimonials/certificates including the High School Leaving Certificate [HSLC] Examination pass certificate for the purpose of recording his educational qualification, date of birth, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that in the original HSLC Examination pass certificate, his age was recorded as 17 years 3 months as on 31.03.1972 but the same was incorrectly recorded. According to the petitioner, such incorrect recording of age was due to wrong information given by his parents at the time of the petitioner's admission in the primary school. It has been contended that the petitioner's actual date of birth is 02.03.1957. By projecting the correct picture, the petitioner stated to have sworn an affidavit on 02.08.1988 and submitted the same before the employer. On the basis of the said affidavit, the petitioner's date of birth was entered in his service book as 02.03.1957.

4. I have heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department & Finance Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 7; and Mr. A. Hassan, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General [A & E], Assam for the respondent nos. 5 & 6.

Page No. 4/14

5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner continued in his service without any interruption till 06.12.2016. It was on 06.12.2016, the petitioner was suddenly asked by the respondent no. 4 to produce the original HSLC Examination pass certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam [SEBA] to verify and decide about the date of superannuation of the petitioner. Having received the letter dated 06.12.2016, the petitioner had applied and obtained a duplicate HSLC Examination pass certificate from the Board of Secondary Education, Assam [SEBA] on 08.12.2016 and submitted the same before the respondent no. 4 on the same day. After submission of the duplicate HSLC Examination pass certificate, the petitioner, to his shock and surprise, was served with the impugned order dated 08.12.2016, whereby, the petitioner was made to superannuate from service with immediate effect by observing that as per the HSLC Examination pass certificate, submitted on 08.12.2016, the petitioner's date of superannuation should have been 31.01.2015, meaning thereby, the date of superannuation recorded in the service book of the petitioner as 31.03.2017 was incorrect. By serving the impugned letter dated 08.12.2016, the petitioner was directed to submit pension papers for finalization of pension, D.C.R.G., etc.

5.1. In the subsequent Communication dated 10.03.2017, the respondent no. 6 had observed that the petitioner's pay fixation under Revision of Pay [RoP] Rules, 1990 was found not in order and the petitioner's pension papers were returned along with the service book with a request to re-submit the same after re-fixation of pay on 01.01.1989 @ Rs. 1,165/- per month with the date of next increment as 01.01.1990.

5.2. It is the contention of Mr. Sharma that the petitioner was not given the opportunity of presenting his case before he was made to superannuate suddenly from service by the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 and the same has caused immense prejudice to him. It is his submission that had he been given the opportunity to present his side of the case, the petitioner could have submitted all the materials in support of the fact that his date of birth should remain as 02.03.1957, instead of being corrected as 02.01.1955. His further contention is that there was no part played by the petitioner in wrong fixation of pay on Page No. 5/14

01.01.1989 and as such, there could not be any recovery on that count. By referring to the Gratuity Payment Order [GPO] dated 21.11.2017, he has submitted that the recovery of Rs. 8,84,078/-, directed by the GPO, is barred in law since the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 is bad and arbitrary in nature. Consequently, the direction for recovery of the amount for the period from February, 2015 to November, 2016 could not be said to have attained any kind of finality.

5.3. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions in Charubala Devi vs. State of Assam, reported in 1997 [3] GLT 299, and State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih [White Washer] and others , reported in [2015] 4 SCC 334.

6. Mr. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department & Finance Department by referring to the stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 2, has submitted that the petitioner at the time of joining as Tracer in the office of the respondent no. 4 did not submit the original HSLC Examination pass certificate and the date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 02.03.1957 on the basis of an affidavit, sworn on 02.08.1988, submitted by the petitioner declaring his date of birth as 02.03.1957. When the competent authority checked the service book of the petitioner for retirement purpose they came to know that the date of birth was recorded on the basis of an affidavit which was not acceptable. Accordingly, the respondent no. 4 by his letter dated 06.12.2016, had asked the petitioner to submit HSLC Examination pass certificate for verification of his actual date of birth, since the petitioner was a matriculate at the time of his such joining. When the petitioner in response to the said letter dated 06.12.2016, submitted his HSLC Examination pass certificate before the respondent no. 4, it came to light that his date of birth, as per the HSLC certificate, is 02.01.1955, meaning thereby, he had rendered services beyond his actual date of retirement since February, 2015.

6.2. Mr. Nayak has further submitted that if it is found that an employee has disclosed his age and/or his date of birth incorrectly and the age/date of birth of such employee stood recorded in the service book incorrectly, the employer has every right to correct the same so Page No. 6/14

that a chain reaction is averted from causing prejudice to the other members in the same service. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary & Commissioner, Home Department and others vs. R. Kirubakaran , reported in 1994 Supp[1] SCC 155. It is his further submission that under Subsidiary Rule [S.R.] 8, power has been vested to the employer to make an enquiry and thereafter, to make necessary correction in the age/date of birth of an employee. According to him, the same has been done in the case in hand, by asking the employee to submit the original HSLC Examination pass certificate on 06.12.2016. It was after making proper verification and giving due consideration only, the petitioner was made to retire by the order dated 08.12.2016 on superannuation. As such, no interference is called for in the case in hand.

6.3. It is his further submission that the decision to make recovery of the amount indicated in the Gratuity Payment Order [GPO] dated 21.11.2017 is clearly justified as the petitioner had been in service for the period beyond January, 2015 due to act of concealment of his actual date of birth by not producing the original HSLC Examination pass certificate wherefrom the petitioner's actual date of birth i.e. 02.03.1957 would have been revealed.

7. Mr. Hassan, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General [A & E] has submitted that the amount of Rs. 8,84,078/- comprises of two components. An amount of Rs. 7,41,343/- has been sought to be recovered as the petitioner had overdrawn pay and allowances w.e.f. February, 2015 to November, 2016 due to wrong recording of his date of birth in the service book, which stood corrected by the order dated 08.12.2016. An amount of Rs. 1,42,735/- has been sought to be recovered for wrong fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1989 to 31.01.2015. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 8,84,078/- has been sought to be recovered by the Gratuity Payment Order [GPO] dated 21.11.2017. Mr. Hassan has submitted that the petitioner had submitted an undertaking before the office of the Accountant General [A & E], Assam through the respondent no. 4 on 07.02.2017 permitting recovery of excess drawal amount from his pensionary benefits. In view of such undertaking, the recovery of the excess amount due to wrong fixation of pay is permissible. He has contended that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in High Court of Punjab & Haryana & others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in [2016] 14 SCC 267, the propositions laid down in Rafiq Masih [supra], Page No. 7/14

relied on by the petitioner, are not applicable to the case of the petitioner.

8. I have duly considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. I have also perused the service books of the petitioner produced by Mr. Nayak.

9. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it has emerged that the respondent authorities have sought to recover a total amount of Rs. 8,84,078/- from the retirement benefits of the petitioner after ordering him to retire from service on superannuation by the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 with immediate effect and by holding that his date of retirement on superannuation is 31.01.2015. The respondent authorities have reached findings to the effect that the petitioner's actual date of birth is 02.01.1955 and in the service book of the petitioner, the date of birth was wrongly recorded as 02.03.1957. The amount of Rs. 8,84,078/- comprises of recoveries under two heads. An amount of Rs. 7,41,343/- has been sought to be recovered on the ground that the petitioner was in service for the period from February, 2015 to November 2016 unauthorisedly and had, thus, drawn pay and allowances for the said period of overstay unauthorisedly. An amount of Rs. 1,42,735/- has been sought to be recovered on the ground that there was wrong fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1989 to 31.01.2015.

10. In so far as the decision regarding recovery of wrong fixation of pay is concerned, the genesis of the same is the letter bearing no. Pen-7/F/A-036888/IRRI/364/2016-17 dated 10.03.2017. It has been observed therein that the fixation under the Revision of Pay [RoP] Rules, 1990 in respect of the petitioner was found not in order. It was observed therein that as per the Office Memorandum bearing no. FPC.41/90/6 dated 01.02.1991 of the Finance [PRU] Department, Government of Assam in respect of Government servant, whose pay was required to be fixed taking into account the increment due on 01.01.1989, dearness allowance/special relief were to be computed on the basic pay as on 31.12.1988 and not on the basic pay that might be arrived at with increment[s]. Accordingly, it was held that the pay of the petitioner should be fixed in the revised scale of pay on 01.01.1989 @ Rs. 1,165/- per month with the date of next increment as 01.01.1990 as per the calculation made therein and Page No. 8/14

it was decided to revise the petitioner's pay @ Rs. 1,165/- per month on 01.01.1989, instead of @ Rs. 1,185/- per month and to pay the same up to his date of retirement.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents have, however, not been able to show any kind of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner in the process which resulted in such wrong fixation of pay. At this stage, it is apposite to refer the following observations made in the decision in Rafiq Masih [supra] :

"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

[i] Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

[ii] Recovery from retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

[iii] Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

[iv] Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

[v] In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

12. The parties are not in dispute that the petitioner served in a Grade - III post and that he has been made to retire on superannuation from a Grade-III post by the impugned order dated 08.12.2016. In Jagdev Singh [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has referred to the decision in Rafiq Masih [supra] and has brought in a distinction in relation to the Page No. 9/14

principle enunciated in the proposition [ii] by observing that where an undertaking was specifically furnished by an employee at the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted, then there would be no application of the proposition [ii], referred to in the decision in Rafiq Masih [supra]. In Jagdev Singh [supra], it is observed to the effect that while opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the respondent therein was clearly on notice of the fact that a future re-fixation or revision might warrant an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made. In the case in hand, there was no such undertaking submitted by the petitioner at the time of fixation of pay during the years : 1989 and 1990. The said aspect identified in Jagdev Singh [supra] cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner in the absence of any such undertaking from the petitioner at the time of re-fixation of pay or rather wrong fixation of pay. The undertaking referred to by the learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General [A&E], Assam was of the year 2017, which was subsequent to the date, 08.12.2016 when the petitioner was made to retire suddenly and the petitioner was not disbursed the retiral benefits. In his reply, the petitioner has contended that he was compelled to submit the undertaking on being exerted pressure of stopping disbursal of the retiral benefits. The undertaking referred to in Jagdev Singh [supra] cannot be equated to the undertaking given by the petitioner herein, given the facts that the undertaking of 2017 was in relation to wrong fixation of pay during the years : 1989 and 1990 and it was not given at the time of wrong fixation of pay. As such, the fact situation in which the petitioner had given the undertaking was completely different that the fact situation in Jagdev Singh [supra].

13. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the propositions laid down in Rafiq Masih [supra] are applicable proprio vigore in the case of the petitioner. Consequently, the decision to recover the amount of Rs. 1,42,735/- for wrong fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1989 to 31.01.2015 by the Gratuity Payment Order [GPO] dated 21.11.2017 is found to be impermissible and arbitrary and the same is accordingly set aside.

14. In so far as the decision to make the petitioner retire on superannuation with immediate effect by the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 is concerned, it is noticed that the petitioner was directed by the respondent no. 4 by a letter dated 06.12.2016 to submit the Page No. 10/14

original HSLC Examination pass certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam [SEBA] within 3 [three] days for verification of his date of superannuation. In response to the said letter, the petitioner stated to have submitted the duplicate HSLC Examination pass certificate on 08.12.2016. On one hand, the petitioner has asserted that he has submitted all the relevant testimonials and the affidavit, sworn on 02.08.1988, before the employer in and around the time of his joining the service and it was on the basis of the said affidavit, the date of birth of the petitioner was correctly recorded as 02.03.1957. On the other hand, the respondent authorities in the Irrigation Department have asserted that the petitioner did not submit the proper documents so as to record his date of birth on the basis of the HSLC Examination pass certificate despite availability of the same at his disposal as he had passed the HSLC Examination in the year 1972, which was prior to his date of joining the service in 1988. The contrary stands have obviously given rise to a situation where determination of some disputed questions of facts would be necessary and such determination can only be done through a fact-finding enquiry and is not ordinarily done in the course of a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

15. For the case in hand, it is the employer who has sought to correct the date of birth of the employee in the service book, already recorded on the basis of an affidavit sworn on 02.08.1988. The employer has sought to correct the said date of birth on the basis of the HSLC Examination pass certificate produced by the petitioner on 08.12.2016 as directed by the employer on 06.12.2016. In the original service book of the petitioner produced by the learned Departmental counsel, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 02.03.1957, with a note that it was recorded as per the affidavit sworn on 02.08.1988. It is this date of birth i.e. 02.03.1957 that has been corrected by the impugned order date 08.12.2016.

16. In such fact situation obtaining in the case in hand, a reference to Subsidiary Rule [S.R.] 8[c] appears to be apposite. As per S.R. 8[c], the Commissioner and Heads of Departments may alter the recorded date of birth in the case of non-Gazetted servants; provided they are satisfied after enquiry, that the previous date was incorrect. The note to S.R. 8[c] has provided that the Head of the Office should record the date of birth in the service book of a non-Gazetted Government servant on his initial appointment with reference Page No. 11/14

to the Matriculation or equivalent certificate and shall also record a remark to that effect in the service book. In cases where these are not available, the Head of the Office should verify the date with reference to the birth certificate to be produced by the Government servant and record a note to that effect in the service book. In R. Kirubakaran [supra], it was the employee, not the employer like in the case in hand, who had sought for correction of the date of birth in the service book and it was in such backdrop, the observations were made.

16.1. In State of Orissa vs. Dr. [Miss] Binapani Dei and others , reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269, the respondent therein at the time of her appointment by the Orissa Government, declared her date of birth as 10.04.1910 and the same was entered into in the service register. By a letter dated 27.06.1963, the Government of Orissa determined the date of birth of the respondent as 16.04.1907 and declared that she should be deemed to have retired on 16.04.1962 on attaining the superannuation age of 55 years. In Dr. [Miss] Binapani Dei [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the State undoubtedly is not precluded, merely because of the acceptance of the date of birth of the employee in the service register, from holding an enquiry if there exists sufficient grounds for holding such enquiry and for re-fixing the date of birth. But the decision of the State must be based upon the result of an enquiry conducted in manner consonant with the basic concept of justice. An order by the State to the prejudice of a person in derogation of his rights may be made only in accordance with the basic rules of justice and fairplay. The deciding authority is under a duty to give the person against whom an enquiry is held an opportunity to set up his version of defence and an opportunity to correct or to controvert any evidence in the possession of the authority which is sought to be relied upon to his prejudice. For that purpose the person against whom enquiry is held must be informed of the case he is called upon to meet and the evidence in support thereof. The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing as the same involves civil consequences. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of that power. If the essentials of justice are ignored and an order to the prejudice is passed, the order is a nullity.

16.2. The decision in R.S. Kallolimath vs. State of Mysore and another, reported in [1977] 3 Page No. 12/14

SCC 425, referring to the decision in Dr. [Miss] Binapani Dei [supra], has reiterated that it can no longer be disputed that the State is not precluded merely because of the acceptance of the date of birth of its employee in the service register, from holding an enquiry if there exists sufficient reasons for holding such enquiry and refixing his date of birth.

17. Thus, from Subsidiary Rule 8[c] and from the above decisions, it is found settled that the State has the authority and the power to refix the date of birth of a Government employee even though a different date of birth was accepted by the Government at the time of appointment but such a decision can be taken only after an enquiry undertaken in conformity with the principles of natural justice and fair play. In the enquiry, the employee must have to be given a fair opportunity of meeting the case and the principles of natural justice must have to be followed strictly, as the decision sought to be passed is likely to visit the employee with civil consequences. It is settled that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person with strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. In such an enquiry, the employer should take steps at first to lead evidence and give an opportunity to the employee to examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the employee is to be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.

18. From the discussion made in relation to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, it has clearly emerged that before the petitioner was made to retire from service on superannuation by the impugned order dated 08.12.2016, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to meet the case of the State whereby the State respondents had re-fixed the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book to 02.01.1955 from 02.03.1957, already recorded in his service book as far back as in the year 1988. Any decision to re-fix the date of birth of the petitioner, already recorded in the service book about three decades earlier, the petitioner has a right to be heard before making such re-fixation in respect of his date of birth and as such an opportunity of hearing is not afforded/denied to the petitioner, the impugned order is clearly in breach of the principle of natural justice.

19. Having regard to the events that have preceded the impugned order dated Page No. 13/14

08.12.2016, this Court is of the unhesitant view that there is violation of the principles of natural justice in the form of denial of prior opportunity of hearing before the petitioner had been made to retire suddenly from service on superannuation by the impugned order dated 08.12.2016. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. As a corollary, the consequential decision to make recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,41,343/- towards over drawal of pay and allowances by the petitioner for the period of alleged overstay from 01.02.2015 to 30.11.2016 is also set aside.

20. It is iterated, at the cost of repetition, the case herein is that the employer of the employee i.e. the petitioner has sought to re-fix the date of birth of the petitioner by changing the same from 02.03.1957, already recorded in the service book of the petitioner a long years earlier, to 02.01.1955. As has been observed above, the State has the authority and the power to refix the date of birth of a Government employee even though a different date was accepted by the Government at the time of appointment, but the same can be done only after an enquiry. It is, thus, upto the State respondent to decide about the further course of action in the matter. If a decision is taken to proceed with the enquiry, then the State respondents are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry from the stage where the infraction had occurred and complete the enquiry by following the mandatory procedure laid down under the Rules but the same must be completed within a period of 3 [three] months from today, considering the fact that the dispute originated in the year 2016. Any decision in relation to recovery on the ground of alleged overstay in service by the petitioner will abide by the findings and decision arrived at such enquiry with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. It is provided further that in the event the State respondents take a decision that the there would be no further enquiry, then they should process the matter of pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner by taking the petitioner's date of birth as 02.03.1957 and thereafter upon finalisation, disburse the entire dues to the petitioner within a period of 2 [two] months from today.

21. It is also made clear that by this determination, this Court has not made any comment on the merits of the respective claims of the parties regarding the date of birth of the petitioner. With the observations made and the directions given above, the writ petition Page No. 14/14

stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The interim order passed earlier stands merged with this order. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant