RAM KEWAL Vs. U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought the relief of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to retire the petitioner from the service on 1.1.2003.

(2.) THE petitioner holds a class 4 post having been appointed as Coolie in the year 1984 Electricity Distribution Division, Khalilabad district Sant Kabir Nagar and subsequently he was granted preferment/promotion and designated as Fuse -man in the year 1988. The promotion entailed completion of the service record and consequently, the petitioner was referred for medical examination for ascertainment of his age. On the basis of medical report dated 13.1.1988 pursuant to the medical examination to ascertain his age, the date of the birth was accordingly recorded in the service book and by that reckoning he was recorded in the service book to retire on 1.1.2003. According to the own allegations in the writ petition, the date of birth came to be recorded on the basis of medical report dated 13.1.1988. It appears that on the basis of entry made in the service book, a notice preparatory to his retirement was issued indicating therein his date of retirement as 1.1.2003 and as a result, the petitioner preferred representation on 29.8.2002 disputing therein his date of retirement and calling in aid the kutumb register in which the petitioner is shown to have been born on 1,1.1947. Copy of kutumb register filed along with this petition bears no date and thus, it is difficult to ascertain as to on which date it was issued.

(3.) IT is conceded that the entry in the service book came to be recorded pursuant to the medical examination in the year 1988 and at the fag end of retirement, consequent upon notice of retirement, the petitioner made the representation dated 29.8.2002 to modify his date of birth. It is settled position of law that application to modify/change/alter the date of birth at the fag end of retirement cannot be sustained. Having remained a mute spectator since the year 1988, the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the patina of laches, undue delay and acquiescence. In Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Sri Dinabandhu Majumdar, JT 1995 (4) SC 23, the Apex Court posed a question to itself to the effect. 'If an employee of the Government or its instrumentality who is at the fag end of his service and due for retirement from his service shortly, according to his date of birth found in his 'service and leave record' files a writ application before the High Court and invokes its writ jurisdiction for correction of such date of birth with a view to continue in service beyond the normal period of his retirement, will it be appropriate for the High Court to entertain such application to enquire into disputed facts pertaining to his date of birth for correcting it and extend his period of service?' in reply to this question, the Apex Court observed as under :