Pradip Sarkar v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

ORDER Date : 08.11.2024

Heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶2Ms. M. Das, the learned Standing Counsel, PWD appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

¶3Taking into account the issue involved and the urgency expressed the matter is taken up for disposal at this motion stage itself. The petitioner herein claims on the basis of his admit card issued by the Board of Secondary Education that his age as on 01.03.1979 was 14(fourteen) years 2(two) months. He therefore, submits that taking into account the Office Memorandum dated

31.10.2012, the petitioner ought to retire from his service on attaining the age of 60 (sixty) on 31.01.2025. However, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Karimganj, National Highway Division, who is the respondent No. 3 had issued a communication to the petitioner on 08.11.2023, that his date of superannuation would be 31.12.2024. The petitioner thereupon, submitted representations before the authorities concerned on 10.01.2024 as well as on 30.09.2024, Page No.# 3/4 however, the same have not been taken into consideration for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶4This Court has duly heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. This Court has also duly taken note of the Office Memorandum dated

31.10.2012, from where it appears that if a Government servant whose date of birth falls on the first day of any month, the said Government servant shall attain the age of superannuation on the afternoon of the last date of the preceding month and if a government servant whose date of birth falls on days other than the first day of the month shall attain the age of superannuation on the last day of the month.

¶5It is also seen from the Office Memorandum that there are illustrations also given, wherein it has been mentioned that if in the admit card the age of the government servant is shown as 15(fifteen) years 10(ten) months 1(one) day on 01.03.1999, his date of birth should be concluded as 01.05.1983 and the government servant shall retire on superannuation on 30.04.2043. On the other hand, if the government servant age was shown in the admit card as 15(fifteen) years 10(ten) months on the 01.03.1999, his date of birth should be presumed as 02.05.1983 and the government servant shall retire on 31.05.2043.

¶6The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner therefore, submitted in the instant case that from the perusal of the said admit card of the petitioner it would be seen that the petitioner is 14(fourteen) years 2(two) months as on 01.03.1979 and, as such, his date of birth has to be presumed as

02.01.1965 and, as such, the petitioner date of retirement would be on

31.01.2025. Page No.# 4/4

¶7This Court upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties is of the opinion that the submission so made by the petitioner merits considerable as such the Authorities are therefore, required to look into the representation so submitted by the petitioner, in view of the Office Memorandum dated 31.10.2012.

¶8Accordingly, the instant writ petitions stands disposed of by directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to duly take note of the representation so submitted by the petitioner dated 10.01.2024 as well as 30.09.2024, along with the Office Memorandum dated 31.10.2012. The same be done within a period of 2(two) weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of the instant order.

¶9The petitioner is also given the liberty to file a separate representation along with the certified copy of this order.

¶10With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010234152024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/5755/2024o PRADIPoSARKARo S/OoLATEoDHIRENDRAoCHANDRAoSARKAR,o R/OoDR.oSHYAMAoPRASADoPALLY,oBADARPUR,oP.O.ANDP.S.oBADARPUR,o DIST.oCACHAR,oASSAM,oPIN-788806 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSPECIALoSECRETARYoTOo THEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oPUBLICoWORKSoDEPARTMENTo(N.H.oANDo BUILDING),oASSAMoSECRETARIAT,oDISPUR,oPIN-781006. 2:THEoCHIEFoENGINEERo(NATIONALoHGHWAYoWORKS) oCHANDMARI oGUWAHATI-781003 3:THEoEXECUTIVEoENGINEER oPWD oKARIMGANJ oN.H.oDIVISION oSUBHASHoNAGAR o KARIMGANJ oPIN-788710 4:COMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARY oFINANCEoDEPARTMENT oDISPUR oASSAM Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR PIN-78100 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Borpujari, SC, Finance Department Ms. M. Das, SC, PWD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH