Debanon Phonglo vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1165 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010043032022



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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/1619/2022

         DEBANON PHONGLO
         S/O- LATE NAICHRON PHONGL, R/O- VILL.- MAIBANG, P.O. AND P.S.
         MAIBANG, DIST. DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN- 788831.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
         TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HILLS AREA DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-06.

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-06.

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-06.

         4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          N.C. HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL
          DIMA HASAO
          HAFLONG
         ASSAM
          PIN- 788819.

         5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          P.W.D. (R AND B) MAIBANG DIVISION
          MAIBANG
          DIST.- DIMA HASAO
         ASSAM
          PIN- 788831.

         6:THE TREASURY OFFICER
          HAFLONG
                                                                                       Page No.# 2/4
             DIST. DIMA HASAO
             ASSAM
             PIN-788819

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H TALUKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD ROAD




                                    BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

                                             ORDER

22.03.2023 Heard Mr. H. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.

M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Dima Hasao Autonomous Council and Mr. B.

Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam appearing for the

respondents.

The petitioner was appointed as a Handyman under the respondent No.5

vide order dated 30.04.2007 and since then he has been serving under the re-

spondent department until his alleged date of retirement. As per the Transfer Cer-

tificate issued by the School authorities the date of birth of the petitioner has been

mentioned as28.02.1971 and the said fact is also mentioned in the Identity Card

issued to the petitioner. However, subsequently, the petitioner's date of birth was

wrongly recorded as 10.02.1963 in the Registration Form of NPS Account and the

petitioner, without being aware of the aforesaid mistake, had signed the Form. In

doing so, the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in his PAN Card was taken

into account. Although the petitioner had requested for correction of his date of

birth in his Service Book, the authorities did not consider such request made by

the petitioner as a result of which, he was made to retire from service on attaining

the age of superannuation with effect from 28.02.2023.

Page No.# 3/4 After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the

sides, it appears that there were two sets of documents available before the au-

thorities pertaining to the petitioner wherein two conflicting dates of birth of the

petitioner have been reflected. The question that would, therefore, arise is as to

which of the two conflicting dates of birth of the petitioner is required to be acted

upon by the authorities. In other words, which is the document which is to be

given precedence so as to accept the correct date of birth of the candidate

when contrary materials are available. The aforesaid issue has been answered

by the Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 20.02.2023 passed in WP(C)

No.6858/2022 [Anjuma Khatun vs. State of Assam and others]. The relevant obser-

vation made in paragraph 14 of the said decision are quoted herein below for

ready reference :-

"14. Otherwise also, law is well settled that the date of birth as indicated in the school certificate or the matriculation certificate has to be given precedence over any other document to the contrary. Reference in this regard may be given to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Rishipal Singh Solanki -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2022) 8 SCC 602."

In view of the law laid down in the case of Anjuma Khatun (supra) it is now

established that the authorities would have to act on the school certificate of the

petitioner while recording/ considering his actual date of birth. This writ petition is,

therefore, disposed of by directing that the petitioner would submit his school

certificate/matriculation certificate before the authority within 7(seven) days

from today along with a certified copy of this order. If an authentic copy of the

school certificate is produced by the petitioner before the respondent No.4

within the prescribed period, necessary steps for redressal of the grievance of the Page No.# 4/4 petitioner shall be initiated as expeditiously as possible but not later than four

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant