(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) In the present application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.5.1999, Annexure-1, by which the order dated 2.9.1995 retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 1.9.1995 has been upheld. The petitioner had come to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 595 of 1997 which was disposed of on 30.11.1998 with a direction to the respondents to hold an enquiry afresh and then pass appropriate orders, in pursuance of which Annexure-1 came to be issued. In the aforesaid order, this Court had also observed that whether the petitioner would retire on 1.9.1995 or whether he would be deemed to continue in service till 31.12.1997 and would be, therefore, entitled to his salary till that date would abide by the final decision.
(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Naik Instructor in the Bihar Homeguards on 18.10.1963 when his service book was also opened. The service book at this point of time recorded his date of birth as 23.12.1939. The petitioner continued in service of the Bihar Homeguards when a gradation list came to be published in the year 1993. The date of birth of the petitioner in accordance with the entry in the service book was also recorded in the gradation list as 23.12.1939. The petitioner, in the circumstances was clearly to superannuate in October, 1997. On 2.9.1995, respondents issued an order retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 1.9.1995 on the basis of his date of birth allegedly being 1.9.1937. The petitioner assailed the same in CWJC No. 595 of 1997 on the ground that prior to the alteration of his date of birth he was not heard. This Court, by order dated 30.11.1998 set aside the order dated 2.9.1995 with directions to hold a fresh enquiry. Respondents then issued notice to the petitioner and passed final order on 10.5.1999 maintaining their original order of 2.9.1995 retiring the petitioner from service in 1995.