PRAHALAD NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 19.08.2016 in O.A. No. 1703 (C) of 2015 is under challenge, whereby and where under the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the letter dated 07.04.2015 instructing to correct the date of birth of the applicant as 06.10.1955 in view of the order dated 07.06.1996.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 18.05.1983 by the opposite party no.4 and according to him the date of birth was recorded as 06.10.1958. He was continuing as such, the school was taken over by the State Government vide Resolution dated 16.12.1994 with effect from 07.06.1994, his appointment was duly approved by the competent authority, he was getting his regular salary along with all consequential benefits, but all of a sudden the authority has come up with a letter dated 15.07.2015 whereby and where under the date of birth recorded in the service book has been directed to be corrected as 06.10.1955, he having no option, has approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application which is under challenge before this Court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner has vehemently argued while assailing the order on the grounds that the Tribunal while dismissing the Original Application has not taken into consideration the fact that the date of birth as has been recorded in the service book has unilaterally been directed to be corrected without any information in this regard to the petitioner/applicant and as such there is gross violation of Principle of Natural Justice and on this ground alone, the entire action of the authorities is said to be illegal and unjustified. He further argued that even though there was a punishment as has been reflected in the order impugned having been passed on 07.06.1996, but subsequently that has been modified as would be evident from the order dated 21.10.1998, but the Tribunal has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. He further submits that the authorities cannot only on the basis of the vigilance enquiry take any decision which adversely affect the right of the applicant.