Skip to content


Ghanashyam Mishra Vs. State of Orissa Represented by the Secretary to Government in the Education and Youth Services Department and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService;Constitution
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberO.J.C. No. 1668 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1985(II)OLR409
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantGhanashyam Mishra
RespondentState of Orissa Represented by the Secretary to Government in the Education and Youth Services Depar
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Das and B.K. Patnaik
Respondent AdvocateAddl. Govt. Adv.
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - if the authorities were satisfied that there was an error and they corrected the same, he has not to be blamed therefor......training. in 1978, he was called upon to produce the certificate indicating his qualifications and date of birth. as the petitioner had lost the original certificate, he applied for a duplicate and submitted the same to the authorities. on october 31, 1979 he was called upon by the block development officer, polosara, to produce his academic and training certificates in original as it was apprehended that his date of birth had been tampered with on november 3, 1979, the order temporarily terminating his service with effect from march 31, 1979 was passed and direction regarding recovery of the excess amount paid to him was given.3. the petitioner has alleged that he was not aware as to how his date of birth was recorded in the service book. when in 1971 he was called upon to produce the.....
Judgment:

R.C. Patnaik, J.

1. The petitioner has assailed the order of termination dated November 3, 1979 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Chatrapur, (opposite party No. 3) temporarily terminating the service of the petitioner with effect from March 31, 1979 and directing deduction of the amount paid to him from April 1, 1979 till termination from the amount available to him in the Provident Fund deposit and the disciplinary proceeding initiated as per Annexure-4, dated November 16, 1979.

2. The petitioner joined as a teacher in a Lower Primary School in 1941. He had read upto Class VIII and had undergone training. In 1978, he was called upon to produce the certificate indicating his qualifications and date of birth. As the petitioner had lost the original certificate, he applied for a duplicate and submitted the same to the authorities. On October 31, 1979 he was called upon by the Block Development Officer, Polosara, to produce his academic and training certificates in original as it was apprehended that his date of birth had been tampered with On November 3, 1979, the order temporarily terminating his service with effect from March 31, 1979 was passed and direction regarding recovery of the excess amount paid to him was given.

3. The petitioner has alleged that he was not aware as to how his date of birth was recorded in the service book. When in 1971 he was called upon to produce the certificate, he obtained a duplicate as the original had been lost and submitted the same to the authorities. His service book was not in his custody. If the authorities were satisfied that there was an error and they corrected the same, he has not to be blamed therefor. Howsoever that may be, once the date of birth had been corrected from 9. 3. 1921 to 9. 3. 1924, any alteration thereof to the detriment of the petitioner was not possible without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Some criticism has been made regarding temporary termination of the petitioner's service with effect from a retrospective date. The direction regarding recovery has been seriously assailed.

4. In the return submitted by the opposite parties reliance has been placed on two documents : an extract of the admission register maintained at the Chikiti E. T. School where the petitioner got himself admitted in the year 1954 for undergoing training. In the register, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 9. 3, 1921. The said extract has been marked as Annexure-A. The other is a statement filed by the petitioner on June 12, 1972 which is called the numerical return. Therein he had himself shown his date of birth as 9. 3. 1921. Having seen the admission register prepared in 1954 and the return submitted by the petitioner himself in 1972, we have no doubt in our mind that the correct date of birth is 9.3.1921 and if any alteration was made in 1972, the same was erroneous In view of the documents, Annexures-A and B, which are unimpeachable in character, the attack of the petitioner has no force. Hence, though technically the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity before the alteration was made to his detriment, having regard to the facts found, the said aspect loses importance. Hence, we see no merit as regards the first contention.

5. Use of the expression 'temporary termination' was inappropriate. The petitioner has served in the institution and has rendered service until the date of his relief. For service rendered, he is entitled to remuneration. Hence, the direction regarding superannuation with retrospective effect cannot be supported. When he had served in the institution, there cannot be termination with retrospective effect. As he rendered service, he is entitled to remuneration for the period till his relief. If he has received his remuneration for the period, there cannot be any sanction for directing recovery from him or adjustment against his dues.

6. In the result, we quash Annexure-3 and declare that the petitioner superannuated with effect from the date of his relief. In view of the aforesaid, the proceeding is unwarranted. We therefore, quash Annexure-4. There would be no order as to costs.

D.P. Mohapatra, J.

7. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //