UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION WESTERN ZONE MEERUT Vs. U P PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL V LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 20.3.1985, passed by U. P. Public Services Tribunal (V). Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow, respondent No. 1, whereby it allowed the claim of Baru Singh, respondent No. 2, holding that the date of birth of respondent No. 2 was 21.10.1925 instead of 17.6.1922 recorded in his Service Book.

(2.) The facts in brief are that respondent No. 2 was initially appointed in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways as driver on 14.11.1952 on temporary basis. In the year 1955, respondent No. 2 was directed to present himself before the Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarnagar for obtaining the certificate of fitness, as required under Rule 10 of the Fundamental Rules. The Civil Surgeon examined respondent No. 2 and issued certificate on 18.6.1955 that according to his own statement, he was 32 and half years of age and by appearance he looks 33 years old. On the basis of the above certificate, the age of respondent No. 2 was mentioned as 17.6.1922 in his Service Book. Respondent No. 2 also signed the Service Book. In the year 1957, the Medical Officer Incharge District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar again examined respondent No. 2 and issued a certificate on 15.1.1957 that according to the statement of respondent No. 2, he was 36 years of age and by appearance he looks 36 years of age. The State Road Transport Corporation was constituted with effect from 1.6.1972 under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. All the employees of the U. P. Government Roadways were sent on deputation to the Corporation. Respondent No. 2 also Joined the service of the petitioner.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 submitted an application on 6.9.1975 for correction of the date of birth before the petitioner. The representation was rejected. The petitioner informed respondent No. 2 that on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 58 years on 16.6.1980, he would retire on reaching the age of superannuation. Respondent No. 2 raised an Industrial Dispute but the Labour Court by an order dated 1.12.1982 took the view that he was a Government servant and, as such, the Labour Court has no Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. Respondent No. 2 thereafter submitted Claim Petition No. 152/1/5 of 1982 before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, respondent No. 1, challenging the action of the petitioner directing him to retire on 30.6.1980. The Tribunal allowed his claim petition by the impugned order dated 20.3.1985 holding that the date of birth of respondent No. 2 should be taken as 21.10.1925 and not 17.6.1922.