Allowed

Madan Ch. Roy v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Jun 2022WP(C)/3357/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court, via a writ petition under Article 226, directed the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, to correct the petitioner's date of birth from 1962 to 1964, reinstate him with full benefits without a service break, and complete the exercise within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to chief engineer to correct petitioner's date of birth, reinstate him with full benefits without break in service, and complete within six weeks.

Madan Ch. Roy Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010081952021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3357/2021

¶5

MADAN CH. ROY S/O LATE KESHAB CH. ROY

¶6

RESIDENT OF WARD NO. II, PO AND PS GAURIPUR, DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 783331

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPT. GUWAHATI 06

¶10

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶11

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003

¶12

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶13

DHUBRI DIVISION (IRRIGATION) GAURIPUR 783331

¶14

4:BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

¶15

ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 2

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M J BARUAH

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 01.06.2022

¶22

Heard Mr. M.J. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhaya, learned standing counsel for the Irrigation Department appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned standing counsel for the Board of Secondary Education Assam (respondent no.4).

¶23

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking correction of his date of birth from 09.02.1962 to 09.02.1964 in his service book, on the basis of admit card of HSLC Examination, 1986 issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in the Dhubri Division of Irrigation Department at Gauripur on 03.02.1992, and in the gradation list for the category of Grade-IV of Dhubri Division of the Irrigation Department, Gauripur, the name of the petitioner appeared at sl. no. 152, with his date of birth recorded as 09.02.1964. However, the discrepancy in the date of birth appeared in the list of Muster Roll Employees, who were regularized vide Govt. letter no. IGN (E) 04/2003/198 dated 03.10.2005, wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at sl. no. 167 and his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 09.02.1962 instead of 09.02.1964.

¶24

In this regard, the learned standing counsel for the Irrigation Department has stated that as per the service book of the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 09.02.1964. Similarly, the learned standing counsel for the Board of Secondary Education, Assam has also submitted that as per his

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

instructions, in the admit card of the HSLC Examination for the year 1986, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 09.02.1964 against Roll D/115 no.364 of the year 1986.

¶27

Accordingly, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Assam (respondent no.2) is directed to examine the case of the petitioner and if an enquiry, the date of birth of the petitioner is found to be 09.02.1964, to make correction of the date of birth of the petitioner in the official records, wherever necessary, to indicate his correct date of birth. Consequently, if upon enquiry the date of birth of the petitioner is altered to 09.02.1964, as projected by the petitioner, he would be entitled to be reinstated in service for the remaining period of service till he attains the age of superannuation, which shall be with all consequential benefits, without treating the petitioner to have any break in service. The aforesaid exercise as indicated in this order shall be carried out by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Assam (respondent no.2) within an outer period of 6(six) weeks from the date of furnishing of the certified copy of the order.

¶28

The writ petition stands disposed of with relief as indicated above.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Madan Ch. Roy v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Ch. Roy v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Joydeep Purkayastha Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

M/S Saptarshi Industries and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

M/S Saptarshi Industries and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sunil Balmiki Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Smti Sova Mazumdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

North Eastern Council, Vs Manik Chandra Daimary and 4 Ors. E