TRIVENI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 19.7.2005 and 31.8.2005, passed by respondent No. 3. Vide order dated 19.7.2005, the information has been given to the petitioner, by the Executive Engineer (respondent No. 3), that the petitioner has been ordered to be retired on 31.8.2005, whereas by the subsequent order dated 31.8.2005, the petitioner's representation made for correction of date of birth in the service book has been rejected, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 1.8.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 52960 of 2005. The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee with respondent. In the service record the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 2.8.1945. The petitioner has applied for correction of date of birth in the service record on the ground that, in the Kutumb Register, the petitioner's date of birth is different, but no decision was taken. Hence, he filed Writ Petition No. 52960 of 2005 for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 1.8.2005 directing the concerned authority to decide the petitioner's representation. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 3 along with the certified copy of the order of this Court and by the impugned order the respondent No. 3 has rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the date of birth recorded in the service book is correct and no correction is permissible at this stage.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the petitioner's correct date of birth is 21.11.1953 and his elder brother is still in service. The petitioner being class IV employee was not aware of this fact, although he has signed the service book. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered in the right perspective taking into consideration the recording of date of birth of the petitioner in the other records, like Kutumb Register etc.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has submitted that for the purposes of retirement and continuation in. service, the date of birth recorded in the service book shall be deemed to be correct and no infirmity can be attached with the impugned order.