S.L. BALAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked Articles-14 and16 of the Constitution, mainly for setting aside the action of the respondent authorities of changing his date of birth in the service record from 27.10.1945 to 27.10.1944 with the consequential relief of directing the respondent authorities to continue him in service on the basis of the date of birth recorded in Service Book. Even, as the petition was filed on 20.10.2002, though, the petitioner was to retire on 31.10.2002, and taken-up for admission hearing on 30.10.2002, a prayer is made in advance in Para-8(C) to direct the respondent authorities to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner considering the petitioner in the service till 31.10.2003. After the initial order of admission on 30.10.2002, the petition does not appear to have been listed or pressed for hearing for a whole decade.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, for the petitioner clearly conceded that there was no evidence annexed with the petition to suggest that correct date of birth of the petitioner was 27.10.1945 and admittedly following facts stated in the affidavit-in- reply of the Under Secretary, General Administration Department, are not denied.

(3.) IN view of the above undisputed facts, it is clear that not only the petitioner had made claims about further postponing of his date of birth, but, he was informed in writing vide letters dated 16.05.1983 and 17.01.1995 about his correct date of birth, which has to operate in the matter of his date of retirement. Not only that, but, two years before the date of this retirement, the petitioner was specifically informed in writing by letter dated 09.10.2000 that he was to retire on 31.10.2002 and necessary details for preparing the pension papers were called from him. In spite of these facts, the petitioner approached this Court during the last three days of his service and the only argument advanced on his behalf, after 10 years of pendency of the petition, is that he was not given an opportunity of hearing before carrying out correction of the date of birth in the Service Book. In fact, said correction in the Service Book also appears to have been carried out pursuant to the letter dated 17.06.1995, which letter or the replies dated 16.05.1983 and 17.01.1995 to the petitioner have never been challenged in any Court.