Gauhati High Court
WA/324/2025 on 29 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010152382025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/324/2025
ARUN CHANDRA SAIKIA
SON OF LATE BANGSHI SAIKIA,
RESIDENCE OF PARBATIPUR, SONARI, NEAR ABI SONARI BRANCH,
PO- SONARI, DIST- CHARAIDEO, PIN-785690, ASSAM.
........Appellant
-VERSUS-
1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECREATARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM.
2:THE DIRECTOR, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM
KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19.
3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
SIBSAGAR ASSAM PIN-785640.
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN-785640.
5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
SIBSAGAR ASSAM PIN-785640.
........Respondents
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Dutta, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. I. Das,
Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Education
(Elementary) Department.
Page No.# 2/5
Date of Hearing : 29.10.2025.
Date of Judgment : 29.10.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Ms. I. Das, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. N.J. Khataniar,
learned Standing Counsel, Education (Elementary) Department for the
respondents.
2. The appellant has questioned the judgment dated 04.04.2025
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.5042/2018,
refusing to entertain the plea of the appellant that his date of birth be
changed to 01.12.1967 from 31.07.1958; which was wrongly recorded in
his Service Book in the year 1976.
3. The contention of the appellant is that his actual date of birth
is 01.12.1967, which is shown in his High School Leaving Certificate issued
from the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA).
4. Thus, obviously Mr. Dutta, argues, the entry in the Service Book
regarding the date of birth was wrong.
Taking that very date of birth, namely, 31.07.1958, the
appellant was made to retire on 31.07.2018, after having completed
60(sixty) years of age.
Page No.# 3/5
5. The case of the appellant is that he began working at a very
early age in 1976. Ultimately, his services were formalised and he was
given the temporary status in 1987, in which year only he was made
permanent on the post of Lower Grade Assistant-cum-Typist. Prior to his
being confirmed, he only served informally as a Boy Servant, which
period of service cannot be counted for his pension or for his service
length.
6. It further appears from the records that the appellant tried to
have the date of birth corrected in the year 2014. After verification, the
SEBA had confirmed that the actual date of birth of the appellant was
"01.12.1967". Based on that certification, the Service Book of the
appellant was updated in the year 2018.
7. When the appellant was asked to superannuate, treating his
date of birth to be 31.07.1958, he came before this Court vide WP(C)
No.5042/2018, wherein it was decided that the appellant could not be
made to retire in the year 2018 as his date of birth was certified to be
01.12.1967 by the SEBA.
8. Later, a review was filed, in which it was revealed that the
Department had cancelled the corrected date of birth of the appellant
for the reason that if the corrected date of birth had been taken into
account, the appellant would have 51 years of service, which was not
possible as a person entering in a Government job can have a maximum
period of 42 years of service and that also if he enters the service at the
age of 18 years.
9. The appellant also appears to have filed a review petition
Page No.# 4/5
bringing on record the documents on which he relied for contending
that he was born on 01.12.1967 and not in the year 1958.
However, the review petition preferred by the appellant was
dismissed holding that the documents offered by the appellant were of
apocryphal origin, which could not have been relied upon.
10. The learned Single Judge observed that it was absolutely
impossible for anybody to have 51 years of service. If the date of birth of
the appellant is actually taken to be 01.12.1967, he would have joined
the Government service when he was only 9(nine) years of age, which
was not permissible.
Considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant and also directed the
Government to consider whether the amount received by the appellant
by way of his salary after his superannuation in 2018 be recovered.
11. Though agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge regarding the bogus claim of the appellant for his date of birth to
be changed from 31.07.1958 to 01.12.1967, we find that any order for
recovery of the salary beyond 31.07.2018 would be too harsh a step,
especially when the appellant had continued to remain in service by
virtue of the orders of this Court.
12. Thus, we conclude this appeal by holding that the
appellant's date of birth was rightly reckoned as 31.07.1958 but there
shall not be any recovery from him of the salary that he has received
beyond July, 2018.
Page No.# 5/5
13. The writ appeal is partially allowed to the extent indicated
above.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
