ISHWARI DUTT JOSHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed the order of his premature retirement which was served upon him telegraphically on 10th August, 1984. THE petitioner who at the time of his retirement was working as Panchayatraj Inspector, passed his High School Examination in the year 1944 from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education United Provinces. In the certificate of the said examination, which has been annexed as annexure-1 to this petition, his date of birth is entered as 25th March, 1927. He has also annexed the extract of U. P. Gazette Part IV dated 17th June 1944 in which it is mentioned that he has passed the High School Examination from Ramsay High School, Almora and his. Date of birth is recorded as 25th March, 1927. THE petitioner has relied upon the rules known as the U. P. Recruitment to Services Determination of Date of Birth Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time and last by on 6th June, 1980, wherein it is mentioned that the date of birth mentioned in the High School certificate is to be relied upon. In view of the aforesaid rules the petitioner claims that he is entitled to remain in service upto 31st March, 1985 but by means of the impugned order contained in annexure-3 he has been prematurely retired with effect from 10th August, 1984. No counter affidavit has been filed to rebut the allegations made in the Writ petition, leaving no alternative for us except to accept the version of the petitioner.

(2.) ACCORDING to U. P. Recruitment of Services Determination of Date of Birth Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time the date of birth mentioned in the High School certificate is to be relied upon for determining the age of superannuation. The High School certificate as well as the Gazette notification in which the result of High School was published, which has been filed as annexures 1 and 2 to this petition, indicate that the date of birth of the petitioner is 25th March, 1927. There is no reason why it should not be accepted as such. The writ petition was admitted on 25th September, 1984 and on the same date this court has stayed the operation of the order contained in annexure-3 retiring the petitioner with effect from 10th August, 1984. In view of the interim order passed by this court the petitioner continued in service till 31st March, 1985. Thereafter he must have been retired. As such he is only entitled to the pensionary benefits which might have been accrued to him.