ORDER
S.N. Mishra, J.
1. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State-respondent and going through the pleadings filed on their behalf, this writ application is being disposed of at the time of admission itself with the consent of the parties, In this case the prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 24.8.1999, passed by the respondent, District Superintendent of Education, Gumla, whereby he directed to recover the salary paid to the petitioner in between 31.8.1998 to 18.8.1999. Copy of the order is made Annexure 4 to this writ application. The further prayer of the petitioner is for. quashing the order dated 30.8.1999 as contained in Annexure 5 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the entire salary paid during the period aforesaid on the ground that the petitioner was supposed to retire from the service with effect from 31.8.1998 on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the gradation list. Mrs. M.M. Pal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order firstly on the ground that the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the service book is 19th August.
1941 and according to the date of birth so recorded, the petitioner is supposed to retire from service on 18.8.1999. The extract of the service book has been made Annexure 1 to this writ application wherefrom it appears that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 19.8.1941 when the service book was prepared in the year 1966. This factual aspect of the matter has not been denied or controverted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. However, it is alleged that the date of birth of the petitioner was changed in terms of the date mentioned in the gradation list published in the year 1955. It is further stated that the petitioner inspite of repeated directions has failed to produce the service book as well as the matriculation certificate. The submission seems to be wholly misconceived and uncalled for, inasmuch as the employee is not supposed to keep the service book with himself. It is the responsibility of the department to maintain the service book of the individual employee and, as such, the stand taken in the counter- affidavit seems to be made only for the purpose of this case. It is well known principle of law that once the date of birth is mentioned in the service book if it is not corrected during the reasonable period, say, ten years, in that event the same cannot be altered at the instance of the party at the fag end of his retirement. As stated above, admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned in the service book as 19.8.1941 and, accordingly, the petitioner is supposed to retire with effect from 18.8.1999. The impugned order issued on the basis of the date of birth mentioned in the gradation list, is wholly illegal and uncalled for and, accordingly, ‘the orders contained in Annexures 4 and 5 are hereby quashed. Mrs. Pal then submits that the petitioner has not been paid his salary with effect from September. 1998 till the date of retirement and as such, the question of recovery of the salary does not arise. On the contrary, the respondents authorities are bound to pay the salary for the period in question, specially when the petitioner admittedly worked during the period in question. The submission of Mrs. Pal is well founded. Accordingly, the respondents authorities are directed to pay the salary for the period from September 1998 to 31.8.1999 till the date of superannuation, if not already paid, as early as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
2. Application allowed.
