MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed for quashing of the oder directing superannuation of the petitioner (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Brief background of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that the petitioner had been performing and discharging duties as class IV employee. He claims that his date of birth is 22nd September, 1949 and based on the same he was entitled to continue in service and not liable to be superannuated by treating his date of birth as 22nd September, 1939. Petitioner has contended that he came to know of the manipulations in the date of his birth at the point of time when such action has been taken. Counter affidavit has been filed and therein plea has been sought to be taken that petitioner's date of birth is 22nd September, 1939 and in the records maintained in words same has been rightly mentioned. It has been stated that for the first time petitioner was appointed on 07.02.1961, as such if claim of petitioner is accepted that his date of birth is 22nd September, 1949, then at the time of entry in service, his age would be 12 years. Details have also been furnished in the shape of Annexure C.A.-5 clearly mentioning that petitioner has accepted all his benefits by mentioning his date of birth as 22nd September, 1939 . In this background, it has been contended that the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue in service on the basis of manipulations. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein plea mentioned in the counter affidavit has been disputed and it has been mentioned that petitioner's correct date of birth is 22nd September, 1949. After pleading mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners, contended with vehemence that in the present case petitioner has been arbitrarily superannuated and his date of birth has been interpolated by the respondents, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed and the consequential benefits are liable to be extended to the petitioner. Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that action has been taken as per the records, and the petitioner himself has accepted his date of birth as 22nd September, 1939 , as such no interference be made. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is that petitioner claims his date of birth to be 22nd September, 1949, whereas respondents claim the same to be 22nd September, 1939. Petitioner submits that tampering has been done in his service record. Documentary evidence has been filed along with the counter affidavit and therein petitioner's date of birth has been mentioned as 22nd September, 1939 and for grant of gratuity etc. petitioner has described the age of his wife as 58 years and of his two children as 27 and 16 years respectively. Apart from this, there is documentary evidence which shows that for the first time, petitioner was appointed on 07.02.1961; in this background, by no stretch of imagination, petitioner's date of birth can be accepted as 22nd September, 1949. Disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court, and there are material to suggest that action taken by the respondents against the petitioner are not arbitrary or whimsical, as such this Court refuses to interfere in the matter, while exercising its authority of judicial review. Consequently, writ petition as has been framed and drawn is dismissed.