Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040013652025 2026:GAU-AP:972 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/374/2025 Byabang Tatung @ Dui Son of Late Byabang Lilong, permanent resident of Dangdung Village, PO and PS Palin, Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Kra Daadi District, Palin PO Palin, Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Tar Torum, N Tate,Nabam Taro,Kara Parang Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : N/A Page No.# 2/9 Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Judgment & Order (Oral) Heard Mr. T. Torum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for all the respondents. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 01.07.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kra Daadi District, Palin, whereby the petitioner, an Auxiliary Labour Corps (ALC) personnel, has been released from service on the ground that he had attained the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2023, as per his service book record. 3. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that the petitioner was serving as an Auxiliary Labour Corps (ALC) under the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Kra Daadi District, Palin. A notice dated 28.12.2021 was issued to the petitioner stating that, as per the service records, he had attained the age of superannuation and calling upon him to furnish the requisite documents for processing his retirement gratuity. Thereafter, by order dated 19.04.2022, the petitioner was released from service with effect from 30.04.2022 (AN). 4. Aggrieved by his release from service, the petitioner, along with two other ALC personnel, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 19/2023. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the State Government issued O.M. dated 20.01.2025 providing that the ALC personnel appointed by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh would retire on attaining the age of 60 years with effect from 01.01.2024. The said O.M. referred to the earlier Notification dated 20.10.2017 Page No.# 3/9 whereby F.R. 56(a) and (b) had been adopted by the State Government. 5. W.P.(C) No. 19/2023 was thereafter disposed of by order dated 03.03.2025, whereby the petitioners therein were permitted to submit concise representations before the Deputy Commissioner, Kra Daadi District, Palin, who was directed to consider and dispose of the same by a speaking order, taking into account the O.M. dated 20.01.2025 and the Notification dated 20.10.2017. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his representation before the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, by order dated 23.04.2025, the petitioner, along with the other two ALC personnel, was reinstated in service with financial and service benefits from the date of their earlier release, i.e. 30.04.2022. 6. The petitioner thereafter continued in service until the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 came to be issued, whereby he was again released from service on superannuation after attaining the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2023 (A/N), as per his service book record. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Mr. Torum, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 is unsustainable, particularly in view of the subsequent order dated 23.04.2025 whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service with financial and service benefits from 30.04.2022. It is contended that, having regard to the Notification dated 20.10.2017 and the O.M. dated 20.01.2025, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the revised retirement age of 60 years. 8. Learned counsel, by relying on the additional affidavit, submits that the petitioner’s date of birth has been incorrectly recorded in the service records as 01.01.1963, without any supporting document, whereas his actual date of birth Page No.# 4/9 is 25.06.1971, as reflected in his birth certificate and Aadhaar card. Learned counsel submits that, in response to the petitioner’s RTI query regarding the records relating to his date of birth, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, by letter dated 01.09.2025, informed him that no such document was available and called upon him to submit his original birth certificate, which was thereafter submitted on 03.09.2025. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had earlier been treated by the same authority as having attained the age of 45 years as on 19.04.2022, whereas, by the impugned order, dated 01.07.2025, he has been treated as having attained the age of 60 years as on 31.01.2023. It is contended that such computation of age by the same authority is wholly inconsistent and renders the impugned order unsustainable. 10. Learned counsel also submits that similarly situated ALC personnel, who were parties to the earlier proceedings, have continued in service, whereas the petitioner alone has again been released from service, despite his reinstatement pursuant to the earlier proceedings. It is contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and discriminatory and is also contrary to the principles of natural justice, as no effective notice or opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before he was again released from service. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to continue in service pursuant to the order dated 23.04.2025. 11. On the other hand, Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, submits that the petitioner was released from service by order dated 19.04.2022 in terms of the rules applicable to ALC personnel at the relevant time, under Page No.# 5/9 which the age of retirement was 45 years. It is contended that the O.M. dated 20.01.2025, whereby the retirement age of ALC personnel was modified to 60 years, came into effect only from 01.01.2024 and, therefore, does not confer any right upon the petitioner who had already been released from service in 2022. Learned Senior Government Advocate further submits that the Notification dated 20.10.2017 relied upon by the petitioner was applicable to regular Government employees and not to ALC personnel. 12. Learned Senior Government Advocate submits that the order dated 23.04.2025 was issued pursuant to the proceedings arising out of W.P.(C) No. 19/2023 and that the petitioner was permitted to rejoin service in compliance with the said proceedings, without the authority going into the merits of his claim. It is contended that such reinstatement did not result in any alteration of the date of birth recorded in the petitioner’s service records. The subsequent order dated 01.07.2025 was, accordingly, issued on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his service book. 13. Learned Senior Government Advocate submits that the petitioner’s date of birth has consistently been recorded in the service book as 01.01.1963 and that he had joined service pursuant to appointment order dated 02.01.1989. It is contended that no objection to the said entry was raised by the petitioner during his service and that the claim of his date of birth being 25.06.1971 has been raised only subsequently. Learned Senior Government Advocate refers to the birth certificate dated 10.05.2022 relied upon by the petitioner and submits that the same was obtained after the petitioner had already been released from service. 14. Learned Senior Government Advocate also submits that the notice dated Page No.# 6/9 28.12.2021 had been duly served upon the petitioner before the order dated 19.04.2022 was passed. It is further submitted that, as per the service records, the petitioner had already attained the age of 59 years when he was released from service in April, 2022 and that his subsequent reinstatement did not alter the date of birth recorded in his service book. The petitioner was, therefore, again released from service on 01.07.2025 on attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of the said record. Learned Senior Government Advocate accordingly submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 16. Admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in his service book is 01.01.1963. The order dated 19.04.2022 was also passed on the basis of the said service record and records the petitioner’s age as 59 years. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner had sought correction of the said entry during his service. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Harnam Singh, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162, has held that a Government servant may seek correction of his date of birth if supported by acceptable evidence, but such a claim has to be made without unreasonable delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that, until the service record is corrected in accordance with the appropriate procedure, the date of birth recorded therein would determine the date of superannuation. 18. In the present case, the petitioner entered service pursuant to the Page No.# 7/9 appointment order dated 02.01.1989 and the date of birth recorded in his service book has remained 01.01.1963 throughout his service. No material has been placed before this Court to show that the petitioner had sought correction of the said entry at any earlier point of time. The claim that his actual date of birth is 25.06.1971 has been raised only subsequently, after his release from service and when the question of his further continuation in service arose. 19. The birth certificate and Aadhaar card relied upon by the petitioner, therefore, cannot by themselves result in alteration of the date of birth recorded in his service book. It is noticed that the letter dated 01.09.2025 issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner in response to the petitioner’s RTI application merely states that the document sought by him was not available in the office and calls upon him to submit the original birth certificate. The said letter does not record any finding with regard to the correctness of the date of birth recorded in the service book. 20. The order dated 03.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 19/2023 also does not support the petitioner’s claim that he was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. By the said order, the petitioners were permitted to submit representations before the Deputy Commissioner, who was directed to consider the same and pass a speaking order taking into account the O.M. dated 20.01.2025 and the Notification dated 20.10.2017. The said order did not finally determine the petitioner’s entitlement to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. 21. The order dated 23.04.2025, by which the petitioner was permitted to rejoin service with financial and service benefits from 30.04.2022, was passed pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings. The said order did not alter the date of Page No.# 8/9 birth recorded in the petitioner’s service book, nor did it declare that the petitioner was entitled to remain in service up to any particular age. The mere fact that the petitioner was released from service by order dated 19.04.2022 and was thereafter permitted to rejoin service by order dated 23.04.2025, before being again released from service by the impugned order dated 01.07.2025, does not alter the date of birth recorded in his service record. 22. It is also required to be noticed that the O.M. dated 20.01.2025, modifying the retirement age of ALC personnel to 60 years, was made effective from 01.01.2024. Even if the benefit of the said O.M. is extended to the petitioner, the date of birth recorded in his service book being 01.01.1963, the petitioner had already attained the age of 60 years prior to the said date. The said O.M., therefore, cannot, on the basis of the date of birth presently recorded in the service book, confer any right upon the petitioner to continue in service beyond the date of his attaining the age of 60 years. 23. The petitioner’s submission regarding the difference in the manner in which his age was dealt with in the order dated 19.04.2022 and in the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 has to be considered with reference to the date of birth recorded in his service book. The order dated 19.04.2022 was passed on the basis of the service record then available, whereas the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 was passed after the retirement age of ALC personnel had been modified to 60 years. The modification of the retirement age, however, has no bearing upon the date of birth recorded in the petitioner’s service book. In the absence of any correction of the said entry by the competent authority, the respondents were entitled to proceed on the basis of the existing service record. 24. The plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner on the ground that other Page No.# 9/9 ALC personnel have continued in service also does not advance his case. No material has been placed on record to establish that the service particulars, including the dates of birth recorded in their respective service records, were identical to those of the petitioner. The petitioner’s entitlement to continue in service has to be examined with reference to his own service record and the provisions applicable to him. 25. The plea of violation of natural justice also does not advance the petitioner’s case. The petitioner had been put to notice regarding his age and proposed superannuation by the notice dated 28.12.2021, and the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 proceeded on the basis of the date of birth already recorded in his service book. No correction of the said entry had been made by the competent authority in the intervening period. In such circumstances, issuance of the impugned order on the basis of the existing service record cannot, by itself, be treated as a violation of the principles of natural justice. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not been able to establish any right to continue in service on the basis of the date of birth claimed by him. The impugned order dated 01.07.2025, therefore, calls for no interference. 27. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant