LALTA PRASAD Vs. U P COOP FEDERATION LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Lalta Prasad has approached this Court against the order dated 12.10.92. by which he had been retired from service with effect from 30.11.92.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the date of birth of the petitioner is 13.4.1941. which is mentioned in the personal file of the petitioner. He further submits that a communication dated 20.10.1975 was issued from the office of opposite party No. 1 and the petitioner was required to indicate his date of birth as well as his educational qualifications and in compliance of the said communication, the petitioner submitted prescribed form mentioning his date of birth as 13.4.1941. He also submits that in the seniority list of the year 1973, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 13.4.1941 and same date of birth is also mentioned in the seniority lists of the years 1986 and 1991 and as such the impugned order is legally not sustamable.

(3.) Sri Anil Kumar Tewari, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner is 12.11.1932 and the petitioner is being retired on the basis of the date of birth declared by the petitioner in his provident fund form, which was filled up by the petitioner in the year 1962, where the petitioner has declared his date of birth as 12.11.1932. It has also been submitted that before passing the Impugned order, the opposite parties have confirmed from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U. P. about the declaration made by the petitioner regarding his date of birth by way of abundant caution. He further submitted that before passing the Impugned order, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity and he was duly informed through letter dated 26.11.92 that he will attain the age of superannuation on 30.11.92. In the rejoinder-affidavit, it has been stated by the petitioner that he is an uneducated person and he had not made any declaration before any authority whatsoever that his date of birth was 12.11.1932. It has also been stated that the petitioner came to know of the present stand taken by the opposite parties after the service of the copy of the counter-affidavit. The petitioner has also preferred an application before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to make necessary correction in the date of birth and has also stated before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that he had made no declaration to the effect that his date of birth was 12.11.1932. The opposite parties have passed the Impugned order on the basis of the date of birth, which is mentioned in the declaration made before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the petitioner never informed by the authorities that they will retire the petitioner on the basis of alleged declaration made before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.