Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010248272022 2026:GAU-AS:14087 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7806/2022 ABDUR RAHMAN AND ANR. S/O ABDUL MOZID, VILL.- UTTAR KHATOWAI, P.O.- UTTAR KHATOWAI, P.S.- RUPAHI, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782124. 2: ON THE DEATH OF MD. WAIZ UDDIN HIS LEGAL HEIRS 2.1) JAYGUN NESSA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O - LATE WAIZ UDDIN VILL.- KARAYGUARI PUB-SALPARA P.O.- PUB-SALPARA P.S.- RUPAHI DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782125. 2.2: SRI HUSANE MUBARAK S/O- LATE WAIZ UDDIN VILL.- KARAYGUARI PUB-SALPARA P.O.- PUB-SALPARA P.S.- RUPAHI DIST.- NAGAON Page No.# 2/16 ASSAM PIN- 782125. 2.3: AJAHAR UDDIN S/O- LATE WAIZ UDDIN VILL.- KARAYGUARI PUB-SALPARA P.O.- PUB-SALPARA P.S.- RUPAHI DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782125. 2.4: AZIMUL HOQUE S/O- LATE WAIZ UDDIN VILL.- KARAYGUARI PUB-SALPARA P.O.- PUB-SALPARA P.S.- RUPAHI DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782125. 2.5: EKRAMUL HOQUE S/O- LATE WAIZ UDDIN VILL.- KARAYGUARI PUB-SALPARA P.O.- PUB-SALPARA P.S.- RUPAHI DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. Page No.# 3/16 REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6, DIST.- KAMRUP. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FINANACE DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 DIST.- KAMRUP. 3:THE UNDER SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (AUDIT BRANCH) DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (ROADS) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON. 6:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD NAGAON ROAD CIRCLE NAGAON ASSAM. 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. KALIABOR RURAL ROAD DIVIDION JAKHALABANDHA NAGAON ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T SK, Ms. R. R. BORAH,MR. I ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE,SC, PWD Page No.# 4/16 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : 10.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Judgment & Order (CAV) Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 & 7, and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, appearing for respondent No. 2. It may be noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No. 2, Md. Waiz Uddin, expired on 25.12.2024. His legal heirs were substituted in his place vide order dated 03.03.2025 passed in I.A.(Civil) No.328/2025 and were brought on record as petitioner Nos. 2(a) to 2(e). 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to correct their dates of birth in the relevant service records, namely, 28.02.1972 in respect of petitioner No. 1 and 31.10.1970 in respect of late petitioner No. 2, Md. Waiz Uddin, and to accordingly correct their dates of superannuation as 20.02.2032 and 31.10.2030 respectively, and to release the salaries and other admissible service benefits withheld from them, on the ground that their dates of birth have been incorrectly recorded in the list Page No.# 5/16 of regularized Muster Roll Workers prepared by the PWD (Audit), wherein their dates of superannuation were shown as 28.02.2017 and 31.10.2016 respectively, despite the aforesaid correct dates of birth having been recorded in their service books and the petitioners having been allowed to continue in service. 3. The case of the petitioners in a nutshell is that petitioner No. 1 was initially engaged as a Muster Roll Worker on 13.08.1991 and petitioner No. 2 was engaged on 01.01.1992 under the Kaliabor Rural Road Division, PWD, Jakhalabandha, Nagaon District. Their services were subsequently regularized with effect from 20.07.2005 pursuant to Government letter dated 30.09.2005 and Finance Department letter dated 22.08.2005, the petitioners having been engaged prior to 01.04.1993. Following their regularization, the petitioners joined their respective posts and continued in service under the said Division. 4. At the time of their engagement and thereafter upon regularization, the petitioners furnished the necessary documents relating to their service particulars. Their service books were accordingly prepared, wherein the date of birth of petitioner No. 1 was recorded as 28.02.1972 and that of petitioner No. 2 as 31.10.1970. The petitioners state that the said entries continued to remain in their service records and were periodically attested by the departmental authorities. Identity cards were also issued to the petitioners reflecting the aforesaid dates of birth. 5. It is stated that discrepancies were noticed in the names and dates of birth of certain regularized Muster Roll Workers. In connection with such discrepancies, the department initiated steps for correction and modification of the relevant particulars. By letter dated 28.05.2008, a report and proforma of details containing the particulars of the concerned workers, along with Page No.# 6/16 supporting documents, were forwarded for necessary correction. The matter thereafter remained under consideration at different levels of the department. 6. Subsequently, a list of the regularized Muster Roll Workers was prepared by the PWD (Audit), wherein the dates of superannuation of the petitioners were shown as 28.02.2017 and 31.10.2016 respectively. The petitioners state that the said dates were incorrect and did not correspond with the dates of birth recorded in their service books. Despite the discrepancy, the petitioners were permitted to continue in service. Their salaries, however, were stopped. The petitioners also rely upon their Provident Fund records, wherein their dates of birth were reflected as 28.02.1972 and 31.10.1970 respectively. 7. The petitioners further state that, in view of the discrepancy in their service particulars, an enquiry was undertaken through the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, pursuant to letter dated 06.06.2016. In the course of the said enquiry, ossification tests were conducted on 21.08.2018, pursuant to which the age of the petitioners was assessed to be between 40 and 50 years. The report of the ossification test was submitted on 10.09.2018. Thereafter, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, directed production of the service books of the petitioners for verification of their dates of birth. 8. Upon verification of the relevant records, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, submitted a report dated 01.12.2018 recording the date of birth of petitioner No. 1 as 28.02.1972 and that of petitioner No. 2 as 31.10.1970 and forwarded the same for necessary correction of their service particulars. Thereafter, the Under Secretary, PWD (Audit), by letter dated 04.03.2019, sought further verification and point-wise comments along with the relevant supporting documents. In response thereto, the Executive Engineer, Kaliabor Rural Road Division, by letter dated 04.04.2019, furnished the Page No.# 7/16 necessary clarification and certified, on the basis of the office records, that the entries appearing at Sl. Nos. 129 and 131 related to the same persons, namely, the petitioners, whose names and dates of birth had been proposed for correction. The said clarification was accordingly forwarded to the higher authorities for necessary action. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the aforesaid verification and the dates of birth recorded in their service books, the necessary correction was not carried out and their salaries remained withheld. The petitioners had earlier instituted W.P.(C) No.4160/2019 questioning the action of the authorities. The said writ petition was subsequently withdrawn by order dated 29.11.2022 with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate steps, as certain inadvertent clerical mistakes had occurred in the translated copy of the relevant document. It is in the aforesaid background that the present writ petition has been filed seeking correction of the dates of birth and consequential dates of superannuation of the petitioners and release of the salary and other admissible benefits due to them. 10. Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dates of birth of the petitioners, i.e. on 28.02.1972 in respect of petitioner No. 1 and 31.10.1970 in respect of petitioner No. 2, are recorded in their respective service books. Learned counsel submits that the process for correction of the particulars was initiated by the department itself by letter dated 28.05.2008 and that the petitioners' case was included in the said process. It is submitted that the subsequent enquiry conducted through the district administration also verified the dates of birth recorded in the service books. 11. Learned counsel submits that the proposal for correction did not originate in the year 2016, as stated by the Finance Department, but had its origin in the Page No.# 8/16 departmental letter dated 28.05.2008. It is submitted that the petitioners had not themselves approached the authorities seeking alteration of their dates of birth and that the subsequent enquiry and verification were undertaken pursuant to the departmental process. Learned counsel further submits that the report dated 01.12.2018 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, recorded the same dates of birth as those entered in the service books. 12. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Mohan Chandra Das v. The Director, State Transport, Assam & Anr., reported in ALR 1969 Assam and Nagaland 259, and submits that the date of birth recorded in the service book is required to be accepted prima facie unless altered after following the procedure prescribed under S.R. 8(c). It is submitted that where such entry is disputed, the competent authority is required to hold an enquiry and afford reasonable opportunity to the employee. 13. Learned counsel also places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. State of Bihar, (2000) 10 SCC 284, and submits that an employee cannot be prematurely retired by treating a date of birth different from the one recorded in the service book as correct without putting the employee on notice. It is submitted that in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the alteration of the date of birth and the consequential premature retirement of the employee. 14. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were permitted to continue in service even after the incorrect dates of superannuation reflected in the PWD (Audit) list and had continued to discharge their duties. Having accepted their services, the respondents could not withhold their salaries for the period during which the petitioners actually worked. It is submitted that the petitioners had continued to render service and that the process for correction Page No.# 9/16 of their dates of birth had been initiated by the department itself. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition. 15. Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 & 7, submits that the services of the petitioners were regularized vide Government letter dated 30.09.2005 and, on the basis of their school certificates, their dates of birth were recorded as 28.02.1972 and 31.10.1970 respectively. Learned Standing Counsel submits that certain anomalies in the names and dates of birth of some regularized employees were noticed and the department initiated the process for correction by letter dated 28.05.2008. It is also submitted that most of the office records, including the records relating to the employees, were completely damaged in the flood at Jakhalabandha on 13.08.2017. 16. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that, in continuation of the aforesaid process, a proposal for correction and modification of the names and dates of birth of the concerned employees was forwarded on 24.12.2015 and, pursuant to the communication dated 01.04.2016, verification was undertaken through the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, who submitted his report dated 01.12.2018. The said report was forwarded to the PWRD (Audit) Branch on 27.12.2018, following which further clarification was sought on 04.03.2019 and the department furnished its reply on 04.04.2019. It is submitted that the Finance Department, vide endorsement dated 31.05.2019, regretted its inability to consider the proposal for correction of the dates of birth, which was thereafter communicated by the Under Secretary, PWRD (Audit Branch), vide communication dated 20.06.2019. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that, as the matter is sub judice, no direction had been received from the Page No.# 10/16 Government for release of the salary of the petitioners. 17. Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, for respondent No. 2, submits that under S.R. 8(c) of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, a request for change of date of birth is required to be made within three years of actual superannuation. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioners had superannuated on 16.02.2017 and 31.10.2016 respectively, whereas the proposal for correction was received by the Finance Department only on 08.02.2019. It is submitted that, as the proposal had been processed by the PWD from the year 2016, the Finance Department regretted its inability to consider the same under S.R. 8(c). 18. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 19. Upon consideration of the materials available on record, it is noticed that the same discloses that the dates of birth of the petitioners were recorded in their respective service books as 28.02.1972 in respect of petitioner No. 1 and 31.10.1970 in respect of petitioner No. 2. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 4 also confirms that the said dates of birth were recorded in the service particulars on the basis of the school certificates submitted by the petitioners. Thus, the dates of birth relied upon by the petitioners are supported by the service records maintained by the department itself. 20. The record further reveals that discrepancies in the names and dates of birth of certain regularized Muster Roll Workers were noticed by the department and, accordingly, the department initiated the process for correction and modification of such particulars by letter dated 28.05.2008. The petitioners' particulars were included in the said process. The correction proceedings, Page No.# 11/16 therefore, cannot be said to have originated from any request made by the petitioners at the fag end of their service. 21. In continuation of the aforesaid process, the department forwarded a proposal for correction and modification of the names and dates of birth of the concerned employees by letter dated 24.12.2015. Pursuant to the communication dated 01.04.2016 issued by the Under Secretary, PWRD (Audit) Branch, the matter was taken up with the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, for verification. An enquiry was accordingly undertaken. In the course thereof, ossification tests were conducted on 21.08.2018, the report whereof was submitted on 10.09.2018, and the age of the petitioners was assessed to be between 40 and 50 years. 22. The service books of the petitioners were produced for verification and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, submitted the report dated 01.12.2018, recording the date of birth of petitioner No. 1 as 28.02.1972 and that of petitioner No. 2 as 31.10.1970. The said report was forwarded by the department to the PWRD (Audit) Branch on 27.12.2018. The Under Secretary, PWRD (Audit) Branch, thereafter sought further verification and point-wise comments by letter dated 04.03.2019, to which the Executive Engineer, Kaliabor Rural Road Division, furnished a reply dated 04.04.2019. The Executive Engineer certified, on the basis of the office records, that the entries at Sl. Nos. 129 and 131 related to the same persons whose names and dates of birth had been proposed for correction. 23. The aforesaid sequence of events clearly negates the stand of the Finance Department, in view of the fact that the department had initiated the process for correction in 2008, the process was subsequently pursued through the departmental authorities, and verification was undertaken through the district Page No.# 12/16 administration. The enquiry ultimately resulted in a report recording the very dates of birth which were already reflected in the service books. There is no material on record to show that, upon such verification, the dates of birth recorded in the service books were found to be incorrect. 24. In Mohan Chandra Das (Supra), this Court considered the provisions of S.R. 8(c) of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules in relation to alteration of the date of birth recorded in the service book. The Court held that the date of birth recorded in the service book has to be accepted prima facie unless the same is altered after following the prescribed procedure. Where the recorded date of birth is disputed and there is prima facie material supporting the claim, an enquiry is required to be held in accordance with the rule and the principles of natural justice are required to be followed. 25. The principle laid down in Mohan Chandra Das (Supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case. The dates of birth recorded in the service books of the petitioners were subjected to verification through the district administration. The verification report dated 01.12.2018 recorded the same dates of birth as those entered in the service books. No contrary finding has been placed before this Court showing that the said entries were found to be incorrect after following the procedure contemplated under S.R. 8(c). 26. The objection raised by the Finance Department is with reference to S.R. 8(c) of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules. The Finance Department has stated that a request for change of the date of birth made within three years of the date of actual superannuation should be entertained. It has further stated that the dates of superannuation of the petitioners were 16.02.2017 and 31.10.2016 respectively, whereas the proposal for correction of their names and dates of birth was received in the Finance Department on 08.02.2019. Page No.# 13/16 27. The stand taken by the Finance Department cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The receipt of the proposal in the Finance Department on 08.02.2019 cannot be regarded as the relevant date of commencement of the process for correction of the dates of birth. The records placed before the Court clearly show that the process had commenced as early as 28.05.2008 with the issuance of the departmental letter. The subsequent proposal dated 24.12.2015 and the verification undertaken pursuant to the communication dated 01.04.2016 were part of the same and continuing process. 28. It is noted that petitioners had not approached the authorities for alteration of their dates of birth immediately before their alleged dates of superannuation. The issue had already been taken up by the department years earlier because discrepancies had been noticed in the particulars of regularized Muster Roll Workers. The time taken thereafter in processing the departmental proposal, conducting verification and obtaining the report of the district administration cannot be prejudicially attributed to the petitioners. 29. In such circumstances, the limitation contemplated under S.R. 8(c) cannot be applied merely by taking the date on which the proposal happened to finally reach the Finance Department. To do so would be to disregard the fact that the department itself had initiated the process for correction in 2008. The subsequent receipt of the proposal by the Finance Department was only a stage in the departmental process already set in motion years back. 30. There is also a discrepancy in the records regarding the date of superannuation of petitioner No. 1. While the PWD (Audit) list reflects his date of superannuation as 28.02.2017, the Finance Department has stated in its affidavit-in-opposition that the same was 16.02.2017. Both dates, however, require consideration in the context of the date of birth recorded in his service Page No.# 14/16 book as 28.02.1972. 31. More importantly, the petitioners were permitted to continue in service even after the incorrect dates of superannuation reflected in the PWD (Audit) list. Their continuation in service has not been disputed by the respondents. The only explanation offered for non-release of salary is that the matter was sub judice and that no direction had been received from the Government for release of salary. There is, however, nothing on record to suggest that the petitioners did not discharge their duties during the period for which salary has been claimed. 32. Once the petitioners were permitted to continue in service and actually discharged their duties, the salary payable for such period cannot be withheld merely because the departmental process for correction of their service particulars remained pending. The respondents cannot permit the petitioners to continue to render service and thereafter deny payment for the service actually rendered by them on the ground that the correction of the relevant records had not been completed. 33. The fact that substantial office records were damaged in the flood at Jakhalabandha on 13.08.2017 does not alter the position either. The service particulars and school certificates relied upon for recording the dates of birth were available, and the dates of birth were subsequently verified through the district administration. The damage to some of the records, therefore, cannot displace the service-book entries which have otherwise remained supported by the available records and the subsequent verification. 34. The materials on record, therefore, clearly establish that the dates of birth of the petitioners were recorded in their service books as 28.02.1972 and Page No.# 15/16 31.10.1970 respectively, that the department itself initiated the process for correction of the relevant particulars in 2008, and that the subsequent verification did not result in any finding that those dates of birth were incorrect. The Finance Department declined to consider the proposal mainly on the ground that the proposal reached it on 08.02.2019 after the dates of superannuation relied upon by it. Such approach does not take into account the departmental process which had commenced much earlier. 35. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioners for correction of their dates of birth is supported by the service records as well as the subsequent verification undertaken by the authorities. There is no material on record to establish that the dates of birth recorded in the service books are incorrect. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to correction of their dates of birth in the relevant service records. Consequently, the endorsement dated 31.05.2019 of the Finance Department, declining to consider the proposal for correction of the dates of birth, as communicated by the Under Secretary, PWRD (Audit Branch), Dispur, Guwahati, vide communication dated 20.06.2019, cannot be sustained and is set aside. 36. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to correct the date of birth of petitioner No. 1 as 28.02.1972 and that of late Md. Waiz Uddin, petitioner No. 2, as 31.10.1970 in their respective service records and other relevant departmental records, including the PWD (Audit) records. 37. Consequent upon such correction, the respondent authorities shall determine the date of superannuation of petitioner No. 1 and, in respect of late Md. Waiz Uddin, the date of his lawful superannuation, in accordance with the applicable service rules and the corrected dates of birth, and shall make necessary corrections in the relevant records. Page No.# 16/16 38. The respondent authorities shall further calculate and release the salary and other admissible service benefits due to petitioner No. 1 and, in respect of late Md. Waiz Uddin, to his legal heirs, for the period during which the petitioners continued in service and actually discharged their duties. The arrears shall be calculated and released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 39. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant