IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8088 of 2003 SRI SARYU KUMAR VERMA, H/O Late Sumitra Devi, resident of Village Bara, Post Karjara, P.S. Silao, District Nalanda. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Nalanda, District Nalanda. 4. The District Magistrate, Nlanda, District Nalanda. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda, District Nalanda. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Harnaut, District Nalanda. 7. The Area Education Officer, Noorsarai, District Nalanda. ----------- 5 30.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The substituted petitioner in this writ petition seeks to press the limited prayer for monetary relief on the ground of the premature retirement of his wife, the original petitioner from government service. It is claimed his wife, the original petitioner, was born on 1.5.1945 and had secured her employment as an Assistant Teacher on 8th August, 1961 and thus entitled to continued in service till 30.4.2003, could not have been made to superannuate on the basis of her wrong date of birth 1.5.1943. For this purpose the learned counsel initially relied on the service book entry, wherein the date of birth of wife of the substituted petitioner, i.e. the original petitioner, was shown as 1st May, 1945. This Court however has great difficulty in accepting such service book entry, inasmuch as, the same was opened after 33 years of appointment of the original petitioner. Counsel then relied on a transfer certificate showing that on 5.1.1952 the original petitioner was admitted in Class-VIth with her date of birth as 1.5.1945, unfortunately that can also not 2 be relied because that would mean that the wife of the substituted petitioner i.e. original petitioner was aged about 61/2 years while seeking admission in Class-VIth. Such transfer certificate which shows that wife of the petitioner had undergone studies only for the period 5.1.1952 to 31.12.1953 and had already passed Class- VIIth examination on 5.1.1954, would mean that she was aged about 8-1/2 years while passing her Class-VIIth examination. Proceeding on that basis this Court would find that when wife of the substituted petitioner, i.e. original petitioner had already been appointed as a teacher on 8th August, 1961, i.e. on mere completion of 16 years of age and thus still a minor there was something amiss which cannot be believed by any prudent person. All these aspects, therefore, cannot be gone into in a writ jurisdiction where such disputed question of fact cannot be agitated. The original petitioner is no longer alive and now the substituted husband wants payment of salary for a period of two years on the ground that his wife was wrongly made to retire by the impugned order. In the opinion of this Court, for claiming salary and for proving that wife of the substituted petitioner was born on 1.5.1945 and not on 1.5.1943, he must file a civil suit where all questions being raised by the petitioner will be gone into in a more elaborate manner in the light of the evidence to be led by both the parties. In case the petitioner would succeed in the suit, he will 3 definitely get payment of salary for two years on the basis of date of birth of his wife being 1.5.1945. With the aforementioned observation this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)