BAKSHI SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER states that he has been serving in the respondent department for a long time and as he was reaching the date of superannuation, he started making efforts to complete his service records so that there is no hitch in getting the pension after he is superannuation. He submits that according to him, there was still one year when he started approaching the officers to get his service book completed and during this process he cannot to know that on first page of his service book, cutting has been done against the column of date of birth. He submits that his date of birth on first page of the Service book was recorded as 20th of August, 1995 BK, which was incorrect, therefore, he made a representation to the respondents. In this representation, according to him, he submitted that his date of birth has not been correctly recorded and has not been authenticated by the head office. He further submitted that there was a cutting on the date of birth. He submits that a certificate had been issued to him by the Headmaster of Govt. High School, Raipur, Jammu on 17.5.1996 wherein his date of birth has been shown as 20th of August, 1996 BK which, when converted into Christian era, comes to 2nd of December, 1939. Accordingly he submits that on the basis of his actual date of birth he has to retire in December, 1997 and not in December, 1996. He has annexed the certificate issued by the Headmaster of Government High School, Raipur, Jammu.

(2.) WHEN the representation was made by the petitioner, respondent No.2, in his letter stated that since a dispute has been raised regarding the date of birth, therefore, he is referring the matter to the Administrative Department. Respondent No.2 also solicited early action by the Administrative Department, in the matter.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, respondent No.1 did not decide the matter and he filed a writ petition in this court being SWP No. 1312/ 96. This petition was disposed of on the first date by this court with the observation, which read: "Petitionerâ„¢s counsel, Mr. Lehar has limited his prayer. He only wants a direction to the Chief Engineer concerned to consider petitioners grievance with regard to the correction of his date of birth and to decide the matter within a time frame. In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of and the petitioner may approach the Chief Engineer concerned, who shall dispose of petitioners case, about the dispute of his date of birth, within two weeks from the receipt of this order and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with rules."