RAJA RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shyamakant Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Harun Quaraishi, learned Advocate for the State.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is restricted only to the extent whereby the respondent authorities have compelled the petitioner to superannuate one year prior to the actual date of his retirement by treating the age of the petitioner as 19 years at the time of selection. For redressal of the grievance, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to consider his representation, which is pending before the competent authority.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to the averments made in the writ petition has contended that the petitioner on being duly appointed as Home Guard in the year 1979, he was allotted Home Guard No. 3669 and sent for training. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the matriculation certificate, his date of birth was duly mentioned as 24/12/1961, which fact also get supported by other certificates, including the Aadhar Card. The authorities concerned had never disclosed regarding the imaginary date mentioned in the nomination register, however, at the fag end when the petitioner came to know that at the time of selection, his age was prescribed only 19 years in the nomination register, he immediately represented to the Director General, Bihar Home Guard, Headquarters, Patna as well as the District Magistrate, Siwan summarizing his bonafide claims with a request to allow him to continue his services by taking note of his actual date of birth i.e., 24/12/1961 recorded in the certificate. However, the authority did not examine the claim of the petitioner and, in the meantime, the petitioner was compelled to retire on 1/1/2020. Hence, the present writ petition.