HAREKRISHNA DAS Vs. CHAIRMAN PARADEEP PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Marine Engineering Division, Paradeep Port Trust has filed this Writ Application challenging the legality of the notice of superannuation dated 16.6.2002 (Annexure 7) and has further prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to allow him to continue in his post till 30th June, 2006 on the basis of date of birth entered in his Service Book.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he had applied for appointment against the post of Overseer in Paradeep Port Trust through Employment Exchange. In January, 1972 he was called to attend an interview for the post of Overseer (Electrical) and was also instructed in the said letter to produce all documents in original in support of actual age, qualification and experience along with mark sheets at the time of interview. The interview was held on 1.2.1972 and the petitioner was selected and joined as Overseer (Electrical) on 12.5.1972. According to the petitioner, he had passed High School Certificate Examination in the year 1964 and in the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 23.6.1944 in stead of 23.6.1948. Therefore, an affidavit was filed before the authority stating that the date of birth of the petitioner is 23.6.1948 and not 23.6.1944 as indicated in the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education. The further case of the petitioner is that the affidavit filed indicating correct date of birth of the petitioner was accepted by the opposite parties and the same was entered into the Service Book. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be retained in service till 30th of June, 2006 and could not have been served with a notice of superannuation in 2002 on the basis of the entry made in the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education.

(3.) SHRI Jagannath Patnaik, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the date of birth as mentioned in the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education did not reflect the correct date of birth as a result of which an affidavit had been filed before the authority indicating the correct date of birth as 23.6.1948. It was further submitted that on the basis of such affidavit, records were prepared subsequently and all the Annexure attached to the Writ Application such as gradation list, prepared from time to time clearly indicate the date of birth of the petitioner as 23.6.1948. On the basis of such document, it was contended by Shri Patnaik that the authorities having accepted the date of birth of the petitioner to be 23.6.1948, at the taged of service of the petitioner, they could not have changed the date of birth as 23.6.1944 to the prejudice of the petitioner and without giving him any notice to show cause or opportunity of hearing. It was further contended by Shri Patnaik that the duplicate Service Book which was supplied to the petitioner indicates both the dates of birth i.e., 23.6.1944 as well as 23,6.1948 and out of the said two dates, the authorities accepted the date of birth as 23.6.1948 and reflected the same in the different gradation lists. With regard to interpolation made in the original Service Book, it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the original Service Book was in custody of the department and the petitioner had no access to the same and, therefore, the allegation that at the instance of the petitioner such interpolation has been made cannot be accepted It was also contended that the interpolation made in the original Service Book could not have been done by the petitioner as both the dates of birth as reflected in the duplicate Service Book were to be the advantage of the petitioner as the authorities had accepted the date of birth to be 23.6,1948.