KAILASH DUBEY Vs. SECL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that the date of birth of the petitioner is 26-11-1952, not 26-11-1947 as recorded in the service register. In support of his contention, the petitioner relies on a transfer certificate dated 4-2-1967 (Annexure - P/4) wherein the date of birth of the petitioner appears to have been recorded as 26-11-1952. The second contention of the petitioner is that the Age Determination Committee (for short "the ADC") has not given the finding as per the circular dated 7-7-1992 (Annexure - P/6) wherein it is provided that if no age is recorded in respect of any employee in any statutory records and the Medical Board/Age Assessment Committee decide an age range, the mid point of the age range so recommended will be taken as the age of the concerned employee.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. S.C. Chadha1 observed that "normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service-book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records.