CWP-12708/2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No.12708/2009 Prakash Chand Sharma Vs. The State of Raj. & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 03/08/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. RK Daga, for petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Meena, Govt. Counsel, for respondents. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally and is being disposed of by the present order. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that despite he being retired from service on 31/05/2008, his retiral dues have been arbitrarily withheld by the respondents and he is entitled for the retiral benefits with interest. As per the matriculation certificate submitted by the petitioner, at the time of seeking appointment, his date of birth which was indisputably recorded in his service record was 07/05/1946. It appears that at later stage, the District Education Officer, on some additional material, which might have been placed by the petitioner, changed the date of birth of petitioner vide order dt.19/03/1987 (Anx.3) from 07/05/1046 to 07/05/1948 and according to his changed date of birth recorded at later stage, he served upto 60 years the age of CWP-12708/2009 [2] superannuation as provided under Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. It appears that after he retired from service as per his date of birth which was later on changed as 07/05/1948 under the orders of District Education Officer, at the stage of finalization of his retiral benefits, it revealed to the department that the petitioner had served for two years more under the orders of the District Education Officer, to which he was not entitled for and the decision could not have been taken in regard to two years additional service rendered by the petitioner; as such, his retiral benefits could not be computed by the department and in such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. This fact has not been disputed and remained uncontroverted from the record that the date of birth, initially recorded in his service book based on his matriculation certificate was 07/05/1946 and it was throughout maintained in the service record maintained by the respondents but by change made from 07/05/1946 to 07/05/1948 by the District Education Officer, for which there was no documentary evidence available which could substantiate the change later on made in the date of birth but the fact remains that he had worked for additional two years on the basis of CWP-12708/2009 [3] the change in the date of birth i.e. 07/05/1948 under the orders of the District Education Officer. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has ever mislead or misrepresented the respondents or forged the document while the change in the date of birth was made in his service record and in such circumstances, if the petitioner has worked for additional two years even after attaining the age of superannuation in view of the change in his date of birth recorded later on, the respondents could not have made recovery from him of the period of two years but at the same time, in absence of any judicial/departmental proceedings/enquiry being initiated against the petitioner,the respondents are under legal obligation to release his terminal benefits to which he is entitled under law taking note of his initial date of birth which was recorded in his service record/book i.e. 07/05/1946 and withholding the retiral dues, in the facts of the instant case, cannot be held to be justified. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed with directions to the respondents to compute the qualifying period of service rendered by the petitioner as per the date of birth initially recorded in his service record which was 07/05/1946 and compute his retiral CWP-12708/2009 [4] dues accordingly by treating date of superannuation as 31/05/2006. After due computation of his retiral benefits, the arrears of the same be paid to him from 01/06/2008 within a period of three months. However, it is made clear that what has been paid to the petitioner for additional two years' period from 01/06/2006 to 31/05/2008 shall not be recovered or adjusted from the retiral dues payable to him. It is further made clear that the petitioner will not be paid any pension for the additional two years of service which he rendered and the pension will be actually paid to him from 01/06/2008 for all practical purposes. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.4/ 12708CW2009-final.doc