SHIV DAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE date of birth of the petitioner is in dispute, and the petitioner claims that he was born on 29. 11. 29, and, therefore, he should not be retired till he comes 55 years of age on the basis of calculation from 29. 11. 29.

(2.) MR. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the service record the date of birth recorded was 29. 11. 29, and the correction was made later on without any notice to him and consequently, the correction making it as 29. 11. 27 is against the principles of natural justice and cannot be taken note of. MR Calla submitted that in the correspondence which ensured between the police department and the Insurance department, the respondents themselves verified that the date of birth of the petitioner was 29. 11. 29, and that being so, they cannot be allowed to unilaterally alter or correct it.

(3.) SINCE, I am convinced that the age of the petitioner at the time of entering into the service was 20 years, and the correct entry made in the beginning in the service record was 29. 11. 27, and the alteration of the same to 29. 11. 29 was wholly unjustified and must have been made by someone for the benefit of the petitioner, I am not inclined to invoke extra-ordinary equitable jurisdiction to perpetuate the making of such interpolation or alteration in the service record.