JAI NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner entered in the services of the respondents being appointed as Gangman under an order dated 1.3.1970. At the time of initial appointment, his date of birth recorded was 5.5.1950. A promotion thereafter was accorded to the petitioner as Helper with effect from 1.4.1971. By submitting a representation dated 2.7.1973, the petitioner made a request to the competent authority of the respondents to make necessary correction in his service record relating to his date of birth. As per the petitioner, his date of birth was 20.4.1951, but was erroneously recorded as 5.5.1950. After considering the application submitted by the petitioner, necessary correction in the service record was made on 1.9.1982 by recording 20.4.1951 as date of birth of the petitioner. The date of birth aforesaid was maintained in seniority list and all other relevant service records, however, under a communication dated 11.12.2009, the petitioner was sought to be retired from service with effect from 31.5.2010 by treating his date of birth as 5.5.1950, The petitioner immediately approached to the respondents and pointed out that his recorded date of birth is 20.4.1951, therefore, he cannot be retired from service before 30.4.2011. No heed was given to the issue raised, hence, this petition for writ before this Court. Under the order dated 26.5.2010, as an interim measure, effect and operation of the order retiring the petitioner with effect from 31,5.2010 was stayed, however, the respondents were set at liberty to retire the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. of 60 years, by taking into consideration 20.4.1951 as his date of birth. The interim order aforesaid has been complied with by the respondents and the petitioner continued in service upto 30.4.2011.

(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by acting upon a representation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents entered 20.4.1951 as date, of birth of the petitioner in his service record on 1.9.1982. The same was maintained in all subsequent official documents, except the order dated 11.12.2009, whereby the petitioner was sought to be retired from service with effect from 31.5.2010. It is asserted that no change in the date of birth of the petitioner could have been made after making necessary correction in the service record by due application of mind. In alternative, it is also submitted that if the respondents had any doubt about correctness of the correction made on 1.9.1982, then too, no change could have been made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without adhering the doctrine of audi alteram partem.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.