JAMEED AHMAD Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter was taken up for final disposal on parties submissions thereto. The respondents have filed reply followed by rejoinder by petitioner. The pleadings are complete. Considered. Admit.

(2.) THE counsel for the parties who advanced arguments on whole case, were heard and record examined.

(3.) SR . Superintendent of Police Srinagar, Respondent no.4, solicited Director General of Police, Respondent No.2 to accord required sanction to retirement of petitioner w.e.f. 30 -6 -1999, so that his pension case could be initiated. This was done vide signal No. GB/99/1047 -48 dated 3 -4 -1999 (Annexure -E). Jameed Ahmad filed this petition challenging the above communication (Annexure -E) and seeking continuance in his service till 30.6.2002, after his date of birth is reckoned as 13 -6 -1944, instead of 13 -6 -1941. Petitioner alleges that at the time of entry in the police service as ASI on 5 -4 -67, pursuant to his appointment order No. Police 76/1967 dated 31 -3 -1967, on relaxation of his age bar, he produced certificates before respondents and it was on the strength of these documents that his date of birth was entered in his Character roll as 13 -6 -1944. Petitionerâ„¢s this date of birth is supported by certificate issued by Head Master, Govt. High School Dewar, Gurez and Naib Tehsildar, Assistant Collector 1st Class, Gurez (Annexure A and B). After initial recruitment as Assistant Sub Inspector of police petitioner rose to the rank of Dy. S.P. and is presently posted as SDPO Shaheedgunj. The superannuating retirement of petitioner based on his alleged date of birth is 30 -06 -2002 (in so far as employee retiring during the month retires at the end of that month). By initiating the process of his superannuation from 30 -06 -99, his basic service and legal rights are infringed. The Superintendent of Police is not competent to initiate his superannuation case and the signal given by him to Director General of Police is illegal and improper. Once the age of petitioner is recorded as above in his service records, it cannot be changed or amended except if it is a clerical error and that too on enquiry in which the concerned employee is heard and provided an opportunity. The Matriculation certificate has been given to the employer and it is with the respondents. For this reason he is not able to produce the same and has not been able to obtain a duplicate thereof from the University as record of the University of relevant year (1959) is destroyed in fire. However, relying on said Annexure -A and B and a shadow photostat copy of Character Roll, (Annexure -C), his date of birth as recorded in Character Roll and in service records is 13 -06 -1944. Recording of petitionerâ„¢s date of birth as 13 -06 -1941 in a seniority list by respondents cannot change the position.