JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the impugned Memo No.6903 dated 21.12.2021 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), issued by the Director, Directorate of Urban Administration, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby an order has been passed to recover the salary drawn by the petitioner for the period 01.07.2014 to 30.09.2021 (87 months) i.e. the period which according to the respondents, the petitioner has worked beyond his actual date of superannuation. Further, by virtue of the aforesaid order, the respondents had directed to lodge an F.I.R. against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the actual dispute raised by the respondents is in respect of the date of birth (D.O.B.) of the petitioner. As per him, the actual D.O.B. of the petitioner is 30.06.1964, as per the Matriculation certificate. The said Matriculation certificate, according to the petitioner, was issued by the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as “BSEB”) and it is not the case of any of the parties that the same is forged. He submits that D.O.B. of the petitioner recorded in his Matriculation certificate as 30.06.1964 was verified by the Department from the BSEB. The report of the BSEB has been annexed as part of Annexure-5 and finds place at page-27 of this writ petition. The said document has been signed by the Vigilance Officer of the BSEB, wherein D.O.B. of the petitioner has been certified to be 30.06.1964. As per the learned counsel, it is only when the petitioner was adjusted in the Urban Development Department, a private complaint was filed bringing to the notice of the Authority that the petitioner has played fraud with the employer and has entered in service by giving a wrong D.O.B. In spite of the fact that the D.O.B. of the petitioner was earlier verified from the BSEB, the respondents again verified the same. Surprisingly, this time the BSEB certified that the D.O.B. of the petitioner recorded in the records is 30.06.1954. Surprisingly, this time the BSEB certified that the D.O.B. of the petitioner recorded in the records is 30.06.1954. Based on the said document, it was held that since the D.O.B. of the petitioner is 30.06.1954, he would have superannuated on 30.06.2014 and as the petitioner has worked beyond the aforesaid period till 2019, his continuance in service beyond the period 2014 is illegal, thus a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 3.1. Petitioner’s counsel further submits that the petitioner replied but ignoring the earlier certificates, the impugned order was passed. As per the petitioner, the impugned order is absolutely illegal, as his D.O.B. cannot be reopened at the belated stage by the respondents. He contends that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner before passing of the impugned order, which also makes the entire procedure bad in the eyes of law. 3.2. He lastly submits that there are two reports by the same Authorities giving different D.O.B.s of the petitioner but in view of the fact that first report did not certify the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner to be forged, the respondents could not have relied upon the second report. He also submits that there was no lower age limit for passing of Matriculation examination and the respondents cannot take a plea that the petitioner had passed the matriculation examination at the age of 11 years. To substantiate his claim, he relies upon the Bihar School Examination Board Regulation, 1964, which does not prescribe any minimum age limit for appearing in the Matriculation examination. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State submits that there was a doubt about the D.O.B. of the petitioner. Two complaints were received and based on the said complaints, the respondents sought report from the BSEB about the age of the petitioner. A report was sent by the Examination Board being Letter No.13442 dated 29.11.2021, duly signed by four officers of the Board. In the said report, the D.O.B. of the petitioner has been mentioned as 30.06.1954. Two complaints were received and based on the said complaints, the respondents sought report from the BSEB about the age of the petitioner. A report was sent by the Examination Board being Letter No.13442 dated 29.11.2021, duly signed by four officers of the Board. In the said report, the D.O.B. of the petitioner has been mentioned as 30.06.1954. As per the learned counsel representing the State, since the officers of the Examination Board after verifying the report has forwarded the aforesaid certificate, the respondents have considered the same and proceeded accordingly treating his D.O.B. as 30.06.1954, according to which, the date of superannuation of the petitioner comes to 30.06.2014, thus the impugned order was passed finding that the petitioner had worked beyond the aforesaid period. He submits that the petitioner has played fraud upon the employer as the Enquiry Committee found that the D.O.B. of the petitioner was recorded as 30.06.1959 in his service book maintained by the Hazaribag Mines Board, where the petitioner was initially appointed, and wherefrom the details of the petitioner along with others were sent to the Urban Development Department. It was also found that there was interpolation in the records, especially in respect of the D.O.B. of the petitioner, thus it was decided to consider the D.O.B. of the petitioner as 30.06.1954, as per the report sent by the BSEB to the respondents, which is at page No.32 of the writ petition. He submits that now the petitioner has already superannuated and since he has worked beyond his actual age of superannuation by fraudulent means, it was decided to recover the excess salary of 87 months, which was paid to the petitioner. He submits that that the F.I.R. has already been instituted. 4.1. Learned counsel representing the respondent – Giridih Municipal Corporation, submits that the document which was forwarded from the Hazaribag Mines Board, suggests that the D.O.B. of the petitioner was recorded as 30.06.1959, thus considering the aforesaid date, the petitioner was to superannuate sometime in the year 2019. Since there was interpolation in the records, it was decided to consider the D.O.B. of the petitioner as 30.06.1954, as verified by the Bihar School Examination Board. 4.2. Be it noted that both the respondents have accepted the fact that in this case, no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. 5. Since there was interpolation in the records, it was decided to consider the D.O.B. of the petitioner as 30.06.1954, as verified by the Bihar School Examination Board. 4.2. Be it noted that both the respondents have accepted the fact that in this case, no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Daily Wage employee in the Hazaribag Mines Board, sometime in the month of March, 1992. His services were regularized in the month of August, 1998. Vide Resolution dated 15.06.2016, the services of the petitioner along with several others were adjusted under the various Urban Local Bodies. The petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid Notification, joined the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand, and was posted in the Giridih Municipal Corporation. 5.1. Admittedly, the issue which boils down in this writ petition is the D.O.B. of the petitioner and consequently his age of superannuation and his recovery of salary. 5.2. As per the records, I find that three dates of birth surfaced, so far as this petitioner is concerned. In Annexure-2, which is a document by which the service of the petitioner was absorbed and the order by which the service of the petitioner was adjusted, his D.O.B. has been recorded as 30.06.1959. As per the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner, his D.O.B. is recorded as 30.06.1964. Be it noted that in the entire paper book of this case, the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner is not on record. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have brought the same to the notice of this Court. 5.3. There are two documents issued by the Bihar School Examination Board in support of verification of date of birth :- one is at page No.27 which Letter No. 5967 dated 09.01.2019. The said certificate was issued by the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, addressed to the Municipal Commissioner, Giridih. The said certificate reflects that the D.O.B. of the petitioner as recorded in the records of the BSEB, is 30.06.1964. The roll code of the petitioner is 1404, at serial No.0283. The said certificate has been signed on 08.01.2019 only by the Vigilance Officer, BSEB. After a complaint was made by some private parties about the actual age and D.O.B. of the petitioner, the respondents again sought a clarification from the BSEB. The roll code of the petitioner is 1404, at serial No.0283. The said certificate has been signed on 08.01.2019 only by the Vigilance Officer, BSEB. After a complaint was made by some private parties about the actual age and D.O.B. of the petitioner, the respondents again sought a clarification from the BSEB. The basis of doubt is that it was found that the service book of the petitioner was tampered with, especially with regard to the D.O.B. Further, a doubt was created in the mind of the respondents considering the fact that as per the D.O.B. claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner was only 11 years’ old at the time of passing of his Matriculation examination. Be it noted that the extract of the service book which is alleged to be tampered with by the respondents is also not on record. Acting upon the subsequent request of the respondents to provide data of the actual D.O.B. of the petitioner, the respondent – BSEB again sent a certificate, which is the second document. The said certificate is on record at page No.32 of the writ petition. As per the said certificate being Letter No.13422 dated 29.11.2021, the D.O.B. of the petitioner in the records of BSEB is recorded as 30.06.1954. 5.4. From the aforesaid records, I find that there are three dates of birth of the petitioner. One D.O.B. which has been recorded, is 30.06.1959. This D.O.B. finds place in the part of Annexure-1 i.e. the Resolution bearing Memo No.3208 dated 15.06.2016, whereby the services of the petitioner along with others were absorbed in the Local Bodies from Hazaribag Mines Board. 5.5. In the entire record, I find that there is no basis of concluding his D.O.B. as 30.06.1959, as neither the service book which was opened at the time of employment in Hazaribag Mines Board, nor any other documents have been brought on record. So far as the other two dates of birth i.e. 30.06.1954 and 30.06.1964 are concerned, I find that it is the claim of the petitioner that as per the Matriculation certificate, his D.O.B. is 30.06.1964, but surprisingly the petitioner has not brought his Matriculation Certificate on record. 5.6. Now, the issue is that there are two certificates issued by the same Board i.e. the Bihar School Examination Board. 5.6. Now, the issue is that there are two certificates issued by the same Board i.e. the Bihar School Examination Board. One is at page No.27, which is Letter No.5967 dated 09.01.2019 and another is at page-32, which is Letter No.13422 dated 29.11.2021. The certificate which was issued in the year 2019 reflects the D.O.B. of the petitioner as 30.06.1964, whereas the certificate which was issued in the year 2021 reflects his D.O.B. as 30.06.1954, there is nothing on record to suggest that either one of them is a forged document. In absence of the original Matriculation certificate or any other record and also in view of the fact that none has stated that any one of the certificates is forged, it is very difficult to assess as to which is the certificate to be relied upon to assess the D.O.B. of the petitioner. 5.7. For the purpose of deciding this writ petition, I am relying upon the certificate which was issued in the year 2021 because the same has been signed by four officials of the Bihar School Examination Board, whereas the certificate of 2019 has been signed by only one. As per the certificate issued in the year 2021, the D.O.B. of the petitioner in the records of the BSEB was recorded as 30.06.1954. 5.8. Considering the aforesaid D.O.B. recorded and also the fact that during enquiry, the respondents have found some interpolation in the records, which is evident from the impugned order, I find that the respondents have not committed any illegality in considering the D.O.B. of the petitioner as 30.06.1954. Taking into consideration the D.O.B. of the petitioner to be 30.06.1954, his date of superannuation will be 30.06.2014. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad reported in (2009) 3 SCC 117 , at para-24 & 30 has held as follows:- “ 24. Considering the fact that there was no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud, which could be attributed to the respondent and considering the fact that the appellant had allowed the respondent to work and got works done by him and paid salary, it would be unfair at this stage to deduct the said amount of salary paid to him. Considering the fact that there was no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud, which could be attributed to the respondent and considering the fact that the appellant had allowed the respondent to work and got works done by him and paid salary, it would be unfair at this stage to deduct the said amount of salary paid to him. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the Division Bench decision that since the respondent was allowed to work and was paid salary for his work during the period of two years after his actual date of retirement without raising any objection whatsoever, no deduction could be made for that period from the retiral dues of the respondent.” “ 30. There is another aspect in this matter. Although we have directed that the excess amount paid for two years to the respondent as salary cannot be recovered from the respondent, but we make it clear that for fixing the retiral benefits, the period of two years in respect of which salary was received by the respondent cannot be taken into consideration and the respondent would be entitled to fixation of retiral benefits as on the date of his superannuation i.e. 28- 2-2002.” 7. The admitted fact is that the petitioner was allowed to work beyond his date of superannuation. Admittedly, the petitioner has worked till 30.09.2021. The respondents did not take any steps to superannuate him prior to that. Since the petitioner has served the respondents till 2021 and the respondents have taken work from him, it was not proper on part of the respondents to direct recovery of the salary for the period which he had worked i.e. the alleged extended period of 87 months. Thus, I hold that the petitioner is not liable to refund the salary for the period of 87 months, which he has worked. 7.1. So far as the actual period of service for the purpose of calculating his retiral benefits and other conditions are concerned, the respondents should treat the date of superannuation of the petitioner to be 30.06.2014. 7.2. So far as registration of the criminal case is concerned, I am not interfering with the same. If the petitioner is aggrieved by registration of F.I.R., it is open for him to take recourse under the Criminal Laws of the Land. 8. 7.2. So far as registration of the criminal case is concerned, I am not interfering with the same. If the petitioner is aggrieved by registration of F.I.R., it is open for him to take recourse under the Criminal Laws of the Land. 8. The impugned order as contained in Memo No.6903 dated 21.12.2021 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), is quashed only to the extent of recovery of the salary of 87 months. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.