Girindra Narayan Dakua vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4866 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010246312022




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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/7929/2022

         GIRINDRA NARAYAN DAKUA
         S/O. LT. HARMAHAN DAKUA, VILL. 1 NO. GOLIAHATI, G.C. LANE,
         BARPETA, P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781301.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         TO BE REP. BY THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF
         FOREST FORCE, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-781031.

         2:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

          KAMRUP WEST DIVISION
          BAMUNIGAON
          ASSAM
          PIN-781141.

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPTT.
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-06.

         4:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
         ASSAM
          MAIDAMGAON
          BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI-29.

         5:THE TREASURY OFFICER

          BARPETA
                                                                         Page No.# 2/3

             DIST. BARPETA
             ASSAM
             PIN-781301

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H TALUKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST




                                 BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                      O R D E R

09.12.2022

Heard Mr. H Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. RR Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 being the authorities in the Forest Department, Mr. P Nayak, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 5 being the authorities in the Finance Department and Mr. RK Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 being the authority in the Accountant General, Assam.

2. The petitioner claims that going by the matriculation certificate, his date of birth ought to have been 02.07.1960 and not 01.07.1960. If the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.07.1960, he would superannuate from service on 31.07.2020 and not 30.06.2020 as was done by the order dated 16.03.2020.

3. The issue had already been decided by this Court in its judgment dated 16.11.2022 in WP(C) No. 8203/2018. The claim of the petitioner would also be covered by the said judgment, but with a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division to verify from the records as to whether by following the law laid down in WP(C) No. 8203/2018, the date of the petitioner would be 02.07.1960 or 01.07.1960. If upon examining, the DFO is of the view Page No.# 3/3

that it would be 02.07.1960, it would be deemed that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.07.2020 and accordingly the benefit of one month salary be paid to the petitioner by deducting the pension he had received for the said month.

4. The aforesaid exercise be done by the DFO within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant