NAUMI LAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special appeal preferred against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court by which the writ petition was dismissed and the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner seeking an alteration in his date of birth recorded in his service book.

(2.) The appellant-petitioner was appointed on 9-4-1948 at a Process Server under the District Judge, Lucknow and since then, he was serving on a class-IV post. By a letter dated 31-1-1995, the appellant-petitioner was informed by the District Judge, Lucknow, that on the basis of his date of birth as recorded in the service book which was 10-5-1935, he would retire from service with effect from the afternoon of 31-5-1995 on his attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years. The appellant-petitioner represented to the District Judge, Lucknow against the aforesaid letter disputing the correctness of his date of birth recorded in the service book inasmuch as he asserted that his real date of birth was 9-2-1938. It was further asserted that he could not be made to retire on the basis of an incorrect date of birth recorded in the service book. The representation was, however, rejected by the District Judge, Lucknow. The appellant-petitioner thereafter preferred a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of the learned District Judge, Lucknow as well the correctness of his date of birth recorded in the service book. As stated earlier, the writ petition was rejected by a learned single Judge of this Court by his judgment and order dated 24-5-1995. Feeling still aggrieved, the instant special appeal has been preferred by the appellant-petitioner.

(3.) We have heard Sri Amit Bose, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner at length. It was contended that the date of birth on which an employee can be superannuated, must not be the assumed date of birth but the real date of birth. It was further argued that the service book of the appellant-petitioner was prepared on 18-3-1960 by the then 1st Civil and Sessions Judge, Lucknow when the date of birth of the appellant-petitioner was not recorded. It was asserted that after the service book had been prepared and the signatures of the appellant-petitioner were obtained on the service book, the date of birth was entered as 10-5-1935 in the service book without ascertaining the same either from the appellant-petitioner or from any other source. The learned counsel went on to argue that except for the entry pertaining to date of birth all other entires in the service book were written in blue ink while that of date of birth was made in black ink. It was emphasised that use of different inks clearly indicated that the entry relating the date of birth was recorded subsequently and after other entries in the service book had been made, which would not have been relied upon as the real date of birth of the appellant-petitioner.