WP(C) 2211/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel along with Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. 2. The grievance raised in this writ petition is in respect of non-payment of pensionary and other retirement benefits and also the proposal made vide Ann exure-’I’ and ’J’ letters dated 22.4.1999 and 30.12.2000 for taking disciplinary proceeding and to recover an amount of Rs.3,30,031/-. According to the respond ents, the petitioner was to retire from service on attaining the age of superann uation on 31.8.1991, but he overstayed in service for the period from 1.9.1991 t o 6.1.1998, on which date, he was released from service. As against the aforesa id claim of the respondents, it is the case of the petitioner that the date of b irth recorded in the Service Book is 30.6.1941 on the basis of the Annexure-’K’ Bisharad certificate. The petitioner asserts that the said certificate was pro duced before the school authority and the Headmaster of the school recorded the date of birth of the petitioner on that basis. If the age rerecorded in the sai d certificate is taken to be correct, then the petitioner was to retire from se rvice on 6.1.1998 and in fact, he was released from service on that day. 3. Although the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit but Mr. Da s, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department has produced the records. It appears that there was overwriting in the particular column recording the date of birth. Although Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the photocopy of the purported Service Book of the petitioner showing his dat e of birth as 30.6.1941 but the same is not signed by the petitioner himself nor does it carry finger prints of the petitioner, as per the usual practice being followed by Govt. departments. 4. It is on record that when the petitioner was asked to produce the school certificate, he could not do so but insisted to take his date of birth on the basis of the age recorded in the Bisharad certificate. Situated thus, the resp ondents contacted the school in which the petitioner had studied up-to Class-V III. On enquiry, it revealed that the actual date of birth of the petitioner o n the basis of the age recorded is 30.8.1933 and on that basis, the petitioner was to retire from service on 30.8.1991. 5. On the above basis, the respondents issued the impugned Annexure-’I’ an d ’J’ letters dated 22.4.1999 and 30.12.2000 directing initiation of disciplina ry proceeding and recovery of the amount of Rs.3,30,031/- being the salary drawn by him for the period from 1.9.1991 to 6.1.1998. The petitioner was released f rom service with effect from 6.1.1998 and the course of action vide impugned An nexure-’I’ and ’J’ letters dated 22.4.1999 and 30.12.2000 was sought to be adopt ed after about 2 (two) years of such release of the petitioner from service. D uring the service tenure, the petitioner was never informed of wrong recording o f the date of birth in the Service Book. It was only after his retirement, the respondents proposed to take the aforesaid action against the petitioner by the impugned letters. 6. From the records produced by Mr. SK Das, learned Standing Counsel, Educa tion Department, what has transpired is that the fault for overstay in service i s not attributable to the petitioner but the same is attributable to the Headma ster of the school and the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools. The petitioner continued in service on the basis of the age recorded in the aforesaid Bisharad certificate. It was much a later stage, the respondents carried out the enquiry and found that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 30.8.1933. Be tha t as it may, since the Service Book (photocopy), as has been produced by the pet itioner, does not depict the correct position and according to the respondents, the particular column in the Service Book recording the date of birth of the pe titioner is overwritten, the date of birth as projected by the petitioner cannot be accepted. However, since the petitioner had no hand in overstaying in ser vice for the aforesaid period, there may not be any recovery of salary already drawn by him by rendering service. 7. In view of the above, the Annexure-’I’ and ’J’ letters dated 22.4.1999 a nd 30.12.2000 are set aside and quashed. There shall not be any recovery from t he pensionary and retirement benefits of the petitioner in respect of the salary already drawn by the petitioner for the period from 1.9.1991 to 6.1.1998. Howev er, his pension shall be calculated on the basis of the actual retirement date, which is 30.8.1991, which is to be calculated on the basis of the age recorded i n school certificate. 8. Long 10 years have elapsed since the petitioner retired from service. T here shall not be any delay towards finalizing pensionary and retirement benefi ts of the petitioner. The respondents shall calculate the monthly pension and o ther retirement benefits and pay the same to the petitioner taking his date of r etirement as on 30.8.1991without however any recovery for the period from 1.9.1 991 to 6.1.1998, as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 31st March, 2009. 9. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.