GURCHARAN SINGH SETHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged his retirement from service w.e.f. 30.11.1989 on the ground that he has wrongly been retired as his date of birth is 29.11.1931 as per which he would have attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.1991. According to him Respondent-Bank had wrongly recorded his date of birth as 29.11.1929 which led to the aforesaid error in retiring him w.e.f. 30.11.1989 instead of 30.11.1991.

(2.) Petitioner joined Respondent No. 2/State Bank of Patiala on 8.2.1949. According to his averments in the petition, at the time of his initial appointment in the Bank he had submitted School Leaving Certificate to the Respondent-Bank as per which his date of birth had been specified as 29.11.1931. However, the Respondent-Bank wrongly recorded in the Regional Office petitioner's date of birth as 29.11.1929. Just before his retirement as per wrongly recorded date of birth i.e. 29.11.1929, he came to know that his date of birth had been wrongly recorded and, therefore, he represented Respondent No.1 vide his letter dated 4.11.1989 and also submitted an affidavit regarding his date of birth. Thereafter, Regional Manager wrote a letter dated 8.12.1989 to Manager (P&A) whereby he was directed to confirm the date of birth of the petitioner from his educational certificate and also asked Regional Manager of the Branch in which the petitioner was posted to ask the petitioner to submit an affidavit regarding his date of birth as well as School Leaving Certificate in proof of his age.In response to the above, petitioner submitted an affidavit swearing that his date of birth was 29.11.1931. However, he could not submit his School Leaving Certificate as he had allegedly already submitted the same at the time of initial appointment. However, petitioner's affidavit was not considered by the Respondent and he was relieved of his duty on 30.11.1989. Even after his retirement, on 14.12.1989 the Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Mode! Basti wrote a letter to him asking in proof of his age and why he had not done it earlier. Petitioner submitted reply dated 30.12.1989 wherein he stated that he had only now come to [earn that his date of birth had not been corrected since he had already written to respondent- bank in 1980 and 1986 inconnection with the wrong recording of his date of birth and that he had submitted his original certificate with the Staff Department of the Bank at the time of his initial appointment which was kept in his personal file. Thereafter, petitioner went to Pakistan and approached the Head Master, Government Middle School, Dhudial, District Chakwal from where he had studied and the Head Master of the said School issued Certificate to the petitioner mentioning that the date of birth as per School record was 29.11.1931. The said certificate duly attested by Embassy of Pakistan, High Commission of India at Islamabad and Chairman, Union Council Dhudial, District Chakwal was submitted with the Bank along with petitioner's representation dated 17.2.1990. This representation was forwarded by Branch Manager to the Regional Manager vide Memorandum dated 19.2.1990 recommending that the case of the petitioner be considered favourably. However, on 19.5.1990 petitioner received memorandum from Branch Manager informing that his request had not been acceded to. After receiving this memo, petitioner sent legal notice dated 7.8.1990 calling upon the respondents to change petitioner's date of birth inbank's record from 29.11.1929 to 29.11.1931 and cancel order of retirement dated 30.11.1989 failing which petitioner would be constrained to take legal recourse. No reply having been received by the petitioner, petitioner filed this writ petition in which he has made the following prayers:

(3.) On filing this writ petition, show cause notice was issued on 30.1.1991. However, when no body appeared on behalf of respondent-bank inspite of service, Rule was issued on 15.4.1991.After issuance of Rule, respondents were served again and on 12.11.1992 Deputy Registrar recorded that service had been effected. However, nobody appeared for the respondents inspite of service even after issuance of Rule nor any counter-affidavit filed. Nobody appeared on behalf of respondents even when the matter was heard finally.