LAWS(MPH)-2009-1-101

MIRZA SHARIF BEG Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On January 23, 2009
MIRZA SHARIF BEG Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the order annexure P-2, dated 26/09/2008, issued by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, indore, informing the petitioner that in the service record maintained, his date of birth is recorded as 17/01/1949 and, therefore, he shall attain 60 years on 31/01/2009 and will be superannuated.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that his date of birth is wrongly mentioned in the service book, the correct date of birth is 01/01/1960 and, therefore, he shall attain the age of superannuation only on 01/01/2020 and, therefore, his retirement is not sustainable. Facts that have come on record indicates that petitioner entered the service on 06/01/1977 and in his service book the date of birth is entered as 17/01/1949, it is the case of the petitioner that he had submitted the school leaving certificate and mark sheet of Class VIIth which was issued to him on 31/07/1974, vide Annexure P-1 and in this document his date of birth is recorded as 01/01/1960, it is his case that when he has received the notice Annexure P-2, he filed an affidavit annexure P-3, pointing out that the date of birth is incorrectly entered in the service book and the same be corrected, this request of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure P-4, on 21/10/2008 and it is stated that thereafter petitioner had represented and filed various documents to show that his date of birth is 01/01/1960, but as his claim is not being considered, petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) SHRI V. P. Nema, opposes the aforesaid prayer and submits that petitioner is challenging his retirement only when he has been issued with the notice of retirement, which is not permissible under M. P. Financial Code, Part I, Rule 84 and 85, only clerical mistake in the service book can be corrected and as there is no provision for correction of date of birth, as claimed by the petitioner, it is argued that the correction cannot be permitted, accordingly, respondents seek for dismissal of this petition.