Gauhati High Court
Abdul Matin @ Abdul Motin Sk vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors. ... on 26 September, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010177342023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil) No.2364 of 2023
In W.A. No.15969/2022 (Filing Number)
ABDUL MATIN @ ABDUL MOTIN SK
S/O NURAL HOQUE, RESIDENT OF JHAGRARPAR PART- II, P.O.-
JHAGRARPAR, P.S.- DHUBRI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PWD,
GUWAHATI- 6.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003.
3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD DHUBRI CIVIL SUB-DIVISION
TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION DHUBRI0- 783301.
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 29.
5:HEADMASTER, NO. 343 MOTICHAR J B SCHOOL
SUB- DIVISION DHUBRI ASSAM DHUBRI- 783301.
6:TREASURY OFFICER DHUBRI
DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM- 783301
Linked Case : W.A. No.15969/2022 (Filing Number)
ABDUL MATIN @ ABDUL MOTIN SK
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
Page No.# 2/3
For the Applicant/Appellant : Mr. M.J. Baruah, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. P. Nayak, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
26.09.2023
The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the
applicant/appellant with a prayer seeking condonation of delay of 162 days
occasioned in preferring the connected writ appeal, which is yet to be
numbered.
The applicant herein filed WP(C) No.3918/2021 before the learned
Single Bench with a prayer that he was prematurely retired from service on
28.02.2021 by treating his date of birth to be 15.02.1961. After the applicant/
appellant was retired, he claims to have realized that his date of birth had been
wrongly recorded in the Service Book as 15.02.1961, whereas the actual date of
birth of the applicant/appellant is 30.09.1970 and thus, he should have been
superannuated on 30.09.2030.
The writ petition came to be presented on 03.08.2021, i.e. nearly
6(six) months after the petitioner (applicant/ appellant herein) was
superannuated from service. The learned Single Bench rejected the writ petition
by the order dated 13.06.2022 holding that the challenge given to the date of
birth at the fag end of one's career cannot be entertained. It was also held that
the petitioner's claim that his date of birth was 30.09.1970, was dubitable
because he was engaged as a temporary Muster Roll worker on 03.05.1988 and,
in that event, he would have been less than 18(eighteen) years of age, which is
below the permitted age for employment in Government service. The learned
Page No.# 3/3
Single Judge drew an inference that the date of birth of the petitioner, as
recorded in the Service Book, was correct and rightly so in our opinion.
Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, some of which are referred to below, that a Government
employee cannot be permitted to lay challenge to his date of birth as recorded
in the Service Record at the fag end of his career. Reference in this regard may
be had to the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
State of Assam & Anr. -Vs- Daksha Prasad Deka & Ors. , reported in
(1970) 3 SCC 624 and Union of India -Vs- Harnam Singh, reported in
(1993) 2 SCC 162.
The applicant/appellant herein laid challenge to the date of birth as
entered into his Service Record after being superannuated, which was
hopelessly barred by laches. Thus, the learned Single Bench, in our opinion, was
perfectly justified in rejecting the writ petition by the order dated 13.06.2022,
which does not suffer from any infirmity. In addition thereto, we find that the
reasons set out in the application seeking condonation of delay are totally flimsy
and unacceptable and hence, the instant interlocutory application and the writ
appeal, which is yet to be numbered, lack merit and are hereby dismissed as
such.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
