IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5414 of 2008 RAM NARAYAN SINGH, SON OF LATE LATTAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARASTHAN TOLA, P.S. KALUAHI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DARBHANGA ZONE, DARBHANGA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MADHEPURA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) ----- RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 6.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by Memo No. 672 dated 27.2.2008 by which the petitioner was treated to be retired w.e.f. 18.11.2007 when he attained the age of 60 years, treating his date of birth to be 18.11.1949. By the aforesaid order, the Superintendent of Police, Madhepura has stayed payment of pension of the petitioner. The facts in controversy in this case are that the petitioner joined the service on 1.11.1966. Admittedly in the year 1991 the service book of the petitioner along with the service books of several others, was burnt in fire in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Railway, 2 Jamshedpur. Subsequently the petitioner was asked to supply details regarding his date of birth etc. According to the petitioner he has given his date of birth as 18.11.1949, whereas according to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State (Annexure-C) would indicate that the age of the petitioner has been shown to be 21 years. Annexure-C is an extract of a register which was maintained at the time of appointment of the petitioner. It also contains the opinion of the Medical Officer who examined the petitioner at the time of his recruitment as Constable. If the petitioner’s age is 18.11.1947 as per the claim of the State then he would be 16 years of age at the time of joining. If the petitioner’s age is 18.11.1949 then he would be 18 years of age at the time of joining. Therefore, as far as Annexure-C is concerned, this Court cannot place much reliance on the assessment by the Medical Officer as the estimation is on the basis of the ‘appearance’ and not based on any scientific grounds. The facts aforesaid creates a problem for the State 3 inasmuch, as the police manual specifies that the qualifying age for entrance in the service is 18 years. Thus if the stand of the State is to be accepted then obviously there was same defect in the manner of recruitment, and therefore, it must be rejected. On the other hand, the matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner for the purposes of his promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector would indicate that his date of birth was 18.11.1949. Whatever be the position, it is a fact that the petitioner has worked continuously in service without any complaint till his retirement i.e. till 18.11.2007. At the time when the petitioner’s case was being considered objection was not raised by the department regarding his year of birth. Due to controversy raised by the department this Court holds that by virtue of the fact that the petitioner has worked since 1966 and he completes 41 years of service his period cannot be extended beyond that for the reason as indicated above. I however, find that it would be unfair and unreasonable to 4 withhold the pension of the petitioner on the ground that a controversy has arisen with respect to the year of birth of the petitioner, keeping in mind that he has rendered in service and has twice been promoted and has retired on the post of Inspector of Police without any departmental proceeding during the period of his service with a clean record. In the result, the writ application is partly allowed only to the extent that the order withholding the pension and other benefits of the petitioner is quashed and he would be entitled for payment of his retiral dues and other retiral benefits which should be paid within a reasonable time. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)