MR.SUBEJAN SON OF LATE MD.ISHAQUE Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary for the petitioner, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.12.2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No. 750 of 2001 (Md. Subejan vs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the petitioner 'sapplication for declaration that 3.10.1941 is his correct date of birth, has been rejected. The Tribunal has held that 3.3.1936 is his correct date of birth and, therefore, the impugned notice dated 22.1.2001 (Annexure -6), informing him of his retirement on 2.3.2001, on attaining the age of 65 years, has been upheld. According to the petitioner, he had joined as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent/Mail Carrier (hereinafter referred to as EDDA), Bhawanipur, on 25.8.1958. At the time of his entry into service, he had represented to the respondent authorities that he was born on 3.10.1941. EDDA superannuate on attaining 65 years of age. He had received notice sometime in the year 1991, calling upon him to furnish evidence in support of his date of birth. He had submitted his reply dated 17.5.1991 (Annexure -4), stating therein that he is not in possession of any certificate in proof of age. He had, however, produced a certificate from Singhwara Government Middle School, indicating therein that 3.10.1941 is his date of birth. He did not receive any communication from the authorities and had, therefore, submitted his representation on 24.1.1992, reiterating the same position as stated in Annexure -4. Copies of the same were forwarded to different authorities and are marked as Annexures -5 and 5A hereof. The petitioner again did not receive any communication on his representations and was suddenly visited with the notice dated 22.1.2001 (Annexure -6), informing him that, in view of the position that his date of birth is 3.3.1936, he would be permitted to retire from the post of EDDA, Bhawanipur, on 2.3.2001, on attaining the age of 65 years. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 1.5.2001, which remained unattended, leading to O.A. No. 750 of 2001.

(3.) THE respondents submitted before the Tribunal that the documents produced by them establish that 3.3.1936 is the correct date of birth. The impugned notice is dated 22.1.2001 (Annexure -6), and the petitioner had submitted his representation on 1.5.2001, much after his superannuation. It was further submitted that the petitioner had handed over charge as EDDA, and also signed the papers claiming post - retirement benefits.