IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2678 of 2006 HARIBANSH SINGH, son of late Ganesh Singh, resident of village – Beshnupura, P S – Chapra Mofussil, District – Chapra (Saran). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General of Police cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The I.G. of Police, Darbhanga Zone, Darbhanga. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani. 5. The Bihar Secondary Examination Board through its Secretary, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S. Devendra Kumar Sinha and Anil Kumar No.1. For the State : Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, AC to AAG 10. --------- 02. 25.10.2010 The date of birth recorded in the service book and the date of superannuation based thereon was a subject matter of dispute in CWJC No. 5682 of 2003. The said order after due deliberation was passed on 16.1.2004, which is Annexure-10 to the writ application. Learned single Judge taking the issue and the facts into consideration came to a considered opinion that the petitioner was required to be given a notice and enquiry ought to have been made before a conclusion with respect to the date of birth of the petitioner and date of retirement could be fixed. In the counter affidavit which was filed in the writ application, the State authorities had brought on record an order passed by the concerned authority, which is dated 26th July, 2003. This order is Annexure-13 to the writ application. Claim of the petitioner was rejected for the reasons indicated in the said order. Since this order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it is under challenge in the present writ application afresh. 2 Contention of the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner is that this order was there on record annexed with the counter affidavit, still the learned single Judge passed the order directing the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking a decision. If that was the letter and spirit of the order contained in Annexure-10 then mere passing of the order by respondents in terms of Annexure-13 has no meaning. The proper thing for both the State as well as the petitioner would have been to ensure that Annexure-13 was set aside and the issue was directed to be reconsidered. But since that aspect of the matter was either missed out by the learned single Judge or the fact that the matter was disposed of with direction upon the respondents to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it means that Annexure -13 had been given a go-by because there is no indication to show that Annexure-13 was passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the totality in view of what had been recorded earlier by the Court in CWJC No. 5682 of 2003, Annexure-13 will have to be quashed. Matter will have to be remitted back to the authority concerned with a direction that they will issue a show cause to the petitioner and after hearing him pass appropriate order as to the correct date of birth which can be given to the petitioner and the so-called date of superannuation, which may be required to be fixed accordingly. Since it is an old matter and the matter is being remitted back on the technicality as indicated above, early decision in this 3 regard would be required to be taken. Writ application stands allowed with the above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)