RATHOD KANJI KHIMJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) By way of draft amendment, aforesaid prayers (A) to (F) have also been added but, when the matter is taken up for hearing, two main issues were agitated before the Court about correction of date of birth and to extend the benefit of retirement dues by treating his age of superannuation as 58 years and, therefore, the Court has taken up the issue in the aforesaid perspective as per the broad submissions of both the learned advocates.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was born in Village Suvai on 2nd December, 1965 which date of birth is recorded in the Birth and Death Register to be maintained by the local authority under the provisions of Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 read with Rule 8 of the Gujarat Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 2004. The same is also certified on 21.1.2011 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil Judge, RaparKachchh. On the basis of this date of birth, which has been recorded, the petitioner is to retire on 31.12.2020 on the basis of 55 years of service and if the petitioner's age of superannuation is to be construed as 58 years, then he would be retiring on 31.12.2023. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid situation, the respondent authority wanted to retire him from the services on 31.8.2011, considering the date of birth of the petitioner as 14.8.1956 which has been recorded in the service record of the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that apprehending his retirement on the basis of incorrect date of birth, which is being recorded in the service book, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.8974 of 2011 inter alia praying to rectify the service record of the petitioner so as to reflect his correct date of birth as 2.12.1965 instead of 14.8.1956 and prayed to permanently restrain the respondent from retiring the petitioner on the basis of 55 years by considering the correct date as 14.8.1956. The High Court vide order dated 19.7.2011 directed the petitioner to make a detailed representation and accordingly, respondent No.2 was under a direction to examine and communicate the decision on or before 23.8.2011. Accordingly, the petitioner made a detailed representation on 20.7.2011. However, vide order dated 12.8.2011, the petitioner's representation came to be rejected on the ground that once the entry of the age or date of birth has been made in the service book, no alternation of entry afterwards be allowed nor any alteration will be allowed within few days before superannuation and this decision dated 12.8.2011 is under challenge in the present proceeding.