DHANNU Vs. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 23-4-2002 passed by respondent No. 3, the Deputy Registrar (Administration-II), Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi whereby the petitioner has been directed to have retired on 30-9-1996 on the basis that his date of birth was 18- 9-1936 and recovery of excess amount paid has also been directed. A further prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to restore the services of the petitioner as Ward Sahayak treating his date of birth to be March, 1948 and accordingly he be permitted to continue till he attains the age of 60 years on the basis of said date of birth.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the decision of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 16- 12-1970 as Washerman in Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. Thereafter on 14- 1-1971, the matter regarding date of birth, of the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board constituted by Sir Sunder Lal Hospital itself which reported that the petitioner was about 24 years at that time. Thereafter the post of Washerman was abolished and the petitioner was appointed as Ward Boy on probation. By order dated 1-4-1975 the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Ward Sahayak. After confirmation, the petitioner was again required to appear before the Medical Board and vide its report dated 6-9-1978 the date of birth of the petitioner was determined as March, 1948. It is not disputed by Sri Pankaj Naqvi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that in his service book the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as March, 1948. However on 23-4- 2002 the respondent-authorities passed the impugned order whereby the date of birth of the petitioner was determined as 18-9-1936 and thus it was directed that the petitioner should be treated retired from the University services on 30-9-1996, on his attaining the age of superannuation i. e. 60 years. The recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner with effect from 1-10-1996 till the passing of the impugned order had also been directed.

(3.) IT has further been contended that the respondents themselves have always treated the date of birth of the petitioner as March, 1948 as they themselves permitted the petitioner to work beyond September, 1996 and in case if any such documents relating to his date of birth i. e. school leaving certificate was available at the time of his appointment then the question of determining the age of the petitioner by the Medical Board at the time of his appointment could not have arisen. Such contention of the petitioner also has force.