LAXMI NARAYAN AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was originally filed as Original Application No. 65/1999B, before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal, by the petitioner seeking correction in his date of birth mentioned in the service record. It was contended that instead of retiring him from the actual date of retirement on 30-4-2002, he has been retired on 30-4-1998. The representation was made by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth, but nothing was done and, therefore, he was required to approach the M.P. Administrative Tribunal. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order retiring him so issued on 28-1-1998 (Annx. A/1) is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

(2.) The Original Application was entertained, the notices were issued to the respondents, who have filed their return. During the pendency of the Original Application, since the Tribunal was closed, the Original Application has been transmitted to this Court and has been registered as Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has, vehemently, contended that there was no documentary evidence available to indicate the date of birth so recorded in his service book as 11-4-1940. According to the petitioner, he has simply signed on the first page of the service book which was prepared on 20-7-1962, but has not made any declaration of date of birth. When there were certain disputes with respect to the date of birth came to the notice of the State authorities, instructions were issued directing that employee concerned be asked to make representation. Accordingly, a memo was issued to the petitioner on 25-7-1996 asking him to submit the documents relating to proof of date of birth. Such documents were made available by the petitioner and thereafter he was intimated vide memo dated 20-11-1996 vide Annx.A/16 by the respondents calling on him to produce original of the educational certificate in proof of his date of birth. The petitioner immediately produced such certificates vide his application dated 25-11-1996, but instead of taking a decision on that and correcting the date of birth of the petitioner since the order of retirement was issued he was required to approach the Tribunal. Relying on certificate issued in respect of petitioner, before the date of his first appointment, the petitioner has contended that his correct date of birth was 11-4-1944 and, therefore, there was an error in recording the date of birth of the petitioner as 11-4-1940 and he should not have been retired on the basis of such a date of birth. The relief to this effect have been claimed in the Original Application.