JAGGU Vs. COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. In this petition in order dated 9 -5 -1996 (Annexure -16 to the writ petition) passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Sitapur has been challenged, whereby the petitioner's date of birth has been treated as 19 -10 -1930 and has issued a direction to deduct the amount which the petitioner had received for four years claiming his date of birth to be 19 -10 -1934. By this order dated 9 -5 -1996 it has also been indicated that the amount of Rs. 92360.45 p. received by the petitioner during the above period may also be adjusted from the pension to be allocated to the petitioner.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner was appointed as Class -IV employee in April 1957 in Consolidation Department at Fatehpur. In the service book his date of birth was entered as 19 -10 -1934 and by treating this date of birth the petitioner was to retire on 19 -10 -1994. It appears that at some stage the date of birth mentioned as 19 -10 -1930 was cut in the service book and 19 -10 - 1934 was mentioned and in the service book nothing was mentioned by whose order and by which authority this rectification in the date of birth was made and the corrected date of birth was also not recorded in the words. The original record of the service book has been produced.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The original service book has been placed before me. I have perused the same. The original date of birth entered as 19 -10 -1930 was cut and 19 - 10 -1934 was mentioned. On the new entry of date of birth no signature of any authority was mentioned in the service book. The corrected date of birth has also not been recorded in words. By the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer the real date of birth cannot be assessed. The dealing clerk of the department was also dead and the Commissioner, Consolidation the Competent Authority has also not approved the date of birth 19 -10 -1934 as correct date of birth and the benefit of the circular dated 28th May, 1974 in respect of determination of date of birth as entered in the service book also cannot be extended to the petitioner. The benefit of the provisions of U.P. Service Recruitment (date of birth fixation) Rules, 1974 cannot also be given as the petitioner's entry in the service book in respect of the date of birth is also doubtful. The date of birth once entered in the service book and has been changed subsequently not according to the proper authority cannot be believed. The certificate of the Chief Medical Officer and also of the Gram Pradhan is not an authentic document. In these circumstances the claim of the date of birth to be 19 -10 -1934 is said to be doubtful and therefore, the original date of birth entered as 19 -10 -1930 as indicated in the impugned order remains in tact.