BRAHMADEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The stand of the petitioner is that only when he received notice of attainment of his age of superannuation on 31.12.2007, vide Annexure-1, he came to know that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded in the service book as 01.01.1948. Accordingly, he immediately protested, even before his superannuation, along with his Matriculation certificate issued from the Board which showed that his date of birth was 21.09.1948.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his certificate was sent by the office of the S.P., Rohtas to the Bihar School Examination Board and the Board, after verification, reported by letter dated J 14.12.2007, vide Annexure-5, that his date of birth was recorded in the records of the Board as 21.09.1948. He also submits that since this report from the Board was received prior to the alleged date of superannuation of the petitioner the respondents ought to have allowed him to continue for approximately eight months more in service. He also submits that a similar verification was made in respect of one Waliullah Khan, a Sub-Inspector of Police, and oh the basis of the verification report from the Board, the S.P., Rohtas issued orders dated 27.12.2007, contained in his order no.3697/2007, vide Annexure-7, allowing the said Waliullah Khan to continue in service for another seven months. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner was identical to the case of the said Waliullah Khan, the respondents ought to have allowed the petitioner also to continue for another eight months. He also submits that the petitioner had passed the Matriculation examination before his appointment as Constable and, therefore, there was no reason for the petitioner to give a wrong date of birth at the time of his appointment. He submits that the recording of the date of birth in the service book was merely a slip of pen or error in writing by the person concerned which remained undetected till the petitioner was given the said notice.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed in the case. The stand of the respondents is that during his entire service period, petitioner never filed any application for correction of the date of birth in his service book and only few months prior to his date of superannuation, he filed application for correction of the date of birth and for allowing him to continue in service for approximately eight months more which was legally not fit to be considered.