MORDHWAJ Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant herein has claimed the following reliefs: (i) The order dated 11.1.1994 (Annexure -PL) may be set aside and quashed. (ii) The respondents be directed to correct the date of birth of the applicant as 15.2.1938 and that the applicant is not liable to the retired on 31st January 1994. (iii) That the respondents be directed to pay the applicant all his service and other consequential benefits to which he would have been entitled on his retirement on 29.2.1996.

(2.) The case of the applicant as made out in the original -application is that he was admitted in Primary School Gurkotha on 4.1.2001 (B.K.) and his date of birth at the time of admission was entered as Fagun 1994 which corresponds to 15.2.1938. After leaving the said Primary School the applicant took admission in the Middle School Bhangrotu where the date of birth of the applicant was wrongly recorded as 15.1.1936 instead of 15.2.1938. The wrong date of birth continued to be mentioned in the record including his service record. When the applicant came to known that his date of birth was wrongly record in the service record he made a representation dated 12.8.1992 for correction thereof which was rejected vide Annexure PG. The applicant then filed O.A. 1055/1993 against the wrong and illegal rejection of his representation, which was ordered to be treated as representation, to respondent No.2. When the representation was not decided by respondent No.2, the applicant filed M.A. in the aforesaid original application and the Tribunal granted the stay against the retirement of the applicant till February 1996 in case the representation was not decided finally during the period of one month. It is further case of the applicant that it was thereafter that the representation as the aforesaid original application was treated. Was rejected vide Annexure PL in an arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal manner, hence this original application.

(3.) The respondents contested the claimed of the applicant. It has been averred in the reply that the applicant entered service in the year 1958 but never questioned his date of birth as "recorded in his service book till August 1992 when about one and a half year were left for his superannuation therefore, as per the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court, this original application is liable to be rejected. It has further been claimed that claim of the applicant is time barred. On merit it has been averred mat age of the applicant in his service record has been recorded in accordance with the matriculation certificate and his representation were duly considered and were rightly rejected as per the norms contained in Annexure R -1.