SURENDRA SINGH Vs. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER TELEGRAPHS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Allahabad, dated 20 -9 -74 directing the Petitioner to retire from government service with effect from 30 -11 -74 on having attained the age of superannuation and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to correct the Petitioner's date of birth in his service book.

(2.) THE Petitioner joined service as Lineman in the Post and Telegraphs Department of the Central Government in the year 1940. Later on he was promoted as Telephone Operator. Before joining the service the Petitioner had passed Vernacular Final Examination in 1935 conducted by the Departmental Examination. In the certificate issued by the Registrar of the Departmental Examinations of the United Provinces the Petitioner's date of birth was recorded as September 21, 1921. While in service the Petitioner appeared at the High School Examination with the permission of the departmental authorities and passed the same in 1952. The High School certificate issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education mentioned the Petitioner's date of birth at 21st Sept. 1921. Since in his service book the Petitioner's date of birth was mentioned as 1 -12 -1916, he applied for the correction of the same but the departmental authorities did not pay any attention to his request.

(3.) THERE is no dispute between the parties that the age of superannuation is 58 years. If the Petitioner's date of birth as mentioned in the Vernacular Final Examination certificate and High School certificate is correct, the Petitioner has right to continue in service till 20th September, 1979, but if the date of birth mentioned in the service book is correct, the Petitioner could have retired on 30 -11 -74. The Petitioner has been making persistent efforts to get the entry in the service record corrected but the opposite parties did not consider his request in an objective manner. The plea taken by the Post Master General that the Petitioner's date of birth could not be corrected at the fag end of his service is wholly misconceived. The sequence of facts as stated earlier clearly show that the Petitioner has been making persistent efforts since 1953 for correction of entry in the service record but the departmental authorities did not seriously consider his case. The documents produced by the Petitioner clearly show that his date of birth as mentioned in the High School certificate is correct. The Respondents have failed to place any material to show that the date of birth as mentioned in the High School certificate is suspicious or incorrect. In these circumstances the Respondents were under legal duty to consider the Petitioner's case and pass suitable order. Since the opposite parties failed to apply their mind objectively to the document produced by the Petitioner, the notice issued by the Divisional Engineer dated 29 -7 -74 is illegal and not sustainable in law.