BABOO MUKESH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Maneesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri Namit Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The issue involved in the instant writ petition is as to whether date of birth of the petitioner has correctly been recorded in the records of Municipal Corporation, Lucknow and as to whether he has been rightly allowed to retire on his attaining the age of superannuation treating his date of birth to be 17.6.1952.

(2.) THE petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Line -man by the then Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow and by means of order dated 6.3.1979 he was appointed on the said post. The educational qualification of the petitioner is Class 9th passed. He is also possessed with two years course of training at Industrial Training Institute, Lucknow in the trade of Wireman.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner while arguing the case has drawn attention of the Court on the noting which is contained in annexure No. 11 to the writ petition wherein it has clearly been indicated that date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in all the certificates is 17.6.1954 whereas in the service book the same has been recorded to be 17.6.1952.