KARU DUSAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the petitioner, who happened to be a Chowkidar for a direction upon the respondents to treat the date of birth of the petitioner as 1.6.1961 and to allow him to continue in service till he reaches the age of superannuation. He wants fixing of his date of birth on the basis of so-called opinion of the Medical Board given after his regularization in service instead of 29.5.1950 which has been entered in his service book, when the service book was opened. Averment of the petitioner in the writ application is that he is an illiterate person belonging to Scheduled Caste category and was appointed on the post of Chowkidar on 25.9.1987 under Circle No. 8/1, Fatehpur Police Station in the district of Gaya. As per decision of the State Government the post of Chowkidar became a Class-lV post under the State with effect from 1.1.1990 and the petitioner was also regularized as such. Sometime in the year 1998 all the Chowkidars working in the district, who were otherwise illiterate having no clear evidence of date of birth, were ordered to appear before the Civil Surgeon as per direction dated 1.12.1998. His age in terms of Annexure-2 was determined as 37 and a half years as on 311.1999.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the Circle Officer, Fatehpur wrote a letter to respondent no. 4 seeking direction as to what has to be done with regard to correction of date of birth of the petitioner in his service book in light of the Medical Board's opinion. A request was also made by the petitioner before the Circle Officer for correction of his date of birth in the service book but no step was taken. In absence of correction made in the service book, petitioner has been made to retire with effect from 31.5.2010 which would be evident from a letter issued by the Circle Officer, Fatehpur where the name of the petitioner figures at serial no. 4 and which has been brought on record alongwith I.A. No. 7833 of 2010.

(3.) Submission of Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in light of the Medical Board's opinion contained in Annexure-2 it was the duty of the respondent State to correct the date of birth entered in the service book of the petitioner and to allow him to continue on the post till he reached the age of superannuation. Failure on the part of the State to take a decision within the time frame in light of the evidence contained in Annexure-2 will not accrue in favour of the State.