Allowed

Dr.Geeta Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC2 Jul 2013L.P.A/372/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this letters patent appeal, the Patna High Court set aside an order rejecting a doctor's claim for correcting her date of birth. The court held that the authorities violated principles of natural justice by failing to conduct an enquiry or give the petitioner an opportunity to contradict opposing materials before passing the order. The court quashed the rejection order and directed the responde

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.03.2000 is quashed; respondents directed to hold an enquiry afresh within six months before deciding the representation.

Dr.Geeta Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.372 of 2008 IN

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12880 of 2000 =========================================================== Dr.Geeta Kumari, wife of Dr. Surya Bhushan, resident of E/87, P.C.Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, District Patna.

¶4

.... ....Petitioner-Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Bihar through the Health Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Bihar in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Patna

¶7

1. the Health Commissioner-cum-the Secretary to Government of Bihar in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Patna

¶8

1. The Additional Secretary to Government of Bihar in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna

¶9

1. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna 5. Bihar School Examination Board, Patna

¶10

.... ....Respondents-Respondents

¶11

=========================================================== For the Appellant : M/s Manjeshwar Pd. Sinha, Ratan Kumar Sinha, Madhukar Pandey & S.C.P. Sinha, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. J. P. Kishore, A.C. to S.C. 7 For the Board : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate

¶12

=========================================================== P R E S E N T : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN

¶13

and

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

S. N. Hussain & Ahsanuddin

¶17

Amanullah, JJ.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the

¶19

respondents.

¶20

This letters patent appeal has been filed by writ petitionerappellant challenging order dated 09.10.2007, by which the learned Single Judge of this Court rejected claim of the writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12880 of 2000, which was filed by her challenging memo dated 29.03.2000, by which the concerned respondents rejected her application and held that her date of birth was 04.01.1942 and not 04.01.1945 and ordered her superannuation with retrospective

¶21

Patna High Court LPA No.372 of 2008 dt.02-07-2013

¶22

¶23

effect from 31.01.2000 and also directed to recover the salary etc. paid to her after 31.01.2000 as well as to initiate a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

¶24

The claim of the writ petitioner is that she was born on 04.01.1945 and did her Matriculation in 1958, her Pre-Science in 1959 and Part-I Science in 1963, whereafter she joined M.B.B.S. Course in Darbhanga in the year 1963 itself and every where her date of birth was recorded as 04.01.1945.

¶25

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner further states that the authorities wrongly assumed that the date of her birth was 04.01.1942 and prepared a gradation list on 17.10.1994 showing her date of birth as 04.01.1942. Against the said entry, the writ petitioner filed her objection on 23.03.1995, but no heed was paid to it. She again filed a representation on 25.01.2000 along with her duplicate matriculation certificate showing her date of birth to be 04.01.1945, but that representation was rejected by order dated 29.03.2000, which was passed without even considering the subsequent gradation list dated 13.03.2000, wherein the date of birth of the writ petitioner was clearly shown as 04.01.1945.

¶26

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner also avers that neither any ossification test was done nor any opportunity was given to her before passing the aforesaid impugned order, which was unilateral and ex parte and even no enquiry was held in the matter. Furthermore as per impugned order dated 29.03.2000, no departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules has been started as yet although more than a decade has passed.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the writ petitioner and states that in the application filed by the writ petitioner at the time of joining M.B.B.S. Course, her date of birth was given as 04.01.1942 and, accordingly,

¶28

Patna High Court LPA No.372 of 2008 dt.02-07-2013

¶29

¶30

when gradation list dated 17.10.1994 was prepared, her date of birth was recorded therein as 04.01.1942, but it was never challenged by the writ petitioner and hence the subsequent representation of the writ petitioner dated 25.01.2000 was rightly rejected by the authorities on 29.03.2000, in which specific reasons were given by the authorities for not giving importance to the gradation list of 13.03.2000, which was wrong.

¶31

The matter was considered in detail by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the writ petition was dismissed on the findings that the authorities had examined the original records of Darbhanga Medical College, which indicated that the Admission Register contained 04.01.1942 as the writ petitioner’s date of birth and impugned order dated 29.03.2000 was well considered order after examining the claim of the writ petitioner in her representation dated 25.01.2000.

¶32

Against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the instant letters patent appeal has been filed by writ petitioner-appellant challenging the same on the grounds already mentioned above. The respondents have also raised the same objections, which have been stated above.

¶33

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner had filed a representation on 25.01.2000, which was decided by the authority concerned on 29.03.2000 and there were two gradation lists; one supporting the claim of the writ petitioner and the other supporting the claim of the respondents. Furthermore, the materials produced by both the parties have to be examined by the authorities giving opportunity to both the parties to contradict the claims of each other and to show the validity of the materials produced by the parties concerned. However, the impugned order shows that neither any such opportunity was afforded to the

¶34

Patna High Court LPA No.372 of 2008 dt.02-07-2013

¶35

¶36

writ petitioner nor any enquiry had been held in that regard by the authorities concerned in presence of the writ petitioner.

¶37

In the said circumstances, the principle of equity and natural justice demands that the impugned order be set aside, the writ petition bearing C.W. J.C. No. 12880 of 2000 be allowed to the extent that order dated 29.03.2000 passed by the Additional Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar be quashed and the respondents be directed to hold an enquiry with respect to the representation of the writ petitioner dated 25.01.2000 afresh and pass an appropriate order after holding an enquiry in presence of the parties giving opportunities to them to place their materials and it is so ordered. The entire exercise must be completed within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that the writ petitioner must co-operate in the said proceeding.

¶38

Patna High Court The 2^nd July, 2013 MPS/- N.A.F.R.

¶39

(S.N. Hussain, J)

¶40

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Dr.Geeta Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Geeta Kumari v. the State of Bihar and 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

Md.Naseem Alam Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Uma Nath Tiwary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ajit Ranjan Vs Kumari Archana @ Rinu and Anr.

Bihar State Agricultural Marke Vs Panchu Ram

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Shiv Nath Ram

Sri Subi Lal Sahu and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.