KAHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of the Respondent-U. P. State Sugar Corporation Limited, Amroha Unit, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar. The controversy in the present writ petition is with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. Admittedly in the service record of the petitioner maintained by the respondent-Corporation the date of birth of the petitioner was always shown as 8.5.1946 and the date of his appointment as 8.12.1967. The controversy arose when in the service record of the petitioner his date of birth had been corrected by the respondent-Corporation on 18.5.1998 to be 19 years as in the year 1963 which, according to the respondent-Corporation, was recorded in the provident fund record maintained in the office of Provident Fund Commissioner. According to the respondent-Corporation, on the basis of the corrected date of birth, the petitioner would retire on 30.10.2004, on completion of 60 years of age, regarding which a notice had been issued to the petitioner on 27.8.2004, which has also been now challenged in this writ petition by an amendment application which has been allowed. Earlier also vide order dated 31.12.2003/1.1.2004 passed by Chief Manager, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited, Unit Amroha, district J. P. Nagar, respondent No. 2, it had been ordered that the petitioner would retire on 30.10.2004. The said order has also been impugned in this writ petition. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to retire the petitioner only on 8.5.2006 in accordance with his date of birth (i.e., 8.5.1946) as has been entered in the service book of the petitioner maintained by the Corporation and which was also, according to the petitioner, his date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate. It has thus been prayed that the petitioner be permitted to remain in service and be given all benefits till 8.5.2006.

(2.) I have heard Sri Harish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the State of U. P. and Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- U. P. State Sugar Corporation and have perused the record.

(3.) Initially the controversy with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner arose in 1992 when the petitioner moved an application before the Corporation to give him a certificate regarding his date of birth on the basis of his provident fund record. The Labour Welfare Officer of the Corporation issued a certificate on 2.7.1992 certifying that as per the provident fund record the date of birth of the petitioner, who was working in the Corporation, was 2.11.1955. The said certificate had admittedly been issued by an officer of the respondent-Corporation. Thereafter it appears that on the basis of the said certificate the petitioner moved an application on 12.12.2003 requesting the respondent-Corporation to correct his date of birth as shown in the aforesaid certificate dated 2.7.1992. In response the General Manager of the Corporation issued the order dated 31.12.2003/1.1.2004 stating that since as per the record maintained by the Provident Fund Commissioner, the date of birth of the petitioner was 19 years as on 31.10.1963, his retirement would be governed by the said date, which according to the respondents would be 30.10.2004. Earlier also, as has been stated by the respondents in the counter-affidavit, an enquiry was instituted in the year 1997 with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner in which order had been passed on 16.5.1998 on the basis of which on 18.5.1998, the date of birth of the petitioner had been corrected in the service book of the petitioner maintained by the Respondent Corporation. No record with regard to proceedings relating to the change of date of birth have however been annexed with the counter-affidavit. However, a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed today during the course of hearing in which certain documents had been filed which shall be referred to subsequently, although it may be recorded that the same has now been filed after filing of the rejoinder-affidavit and when the case had already been heard on 28.10.2004 and the matter was posted for further hearing today and no such time for filing such affidavit had been granted to the respondents. However, I shall refer to the documents filed along with the supplementary counter-affidavit also.