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 ensued between the Police department and 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.) Prima facie, the submissions of Mr. Calla are quite plausible. However, Mr. Khan, learned G.A., has placed before me the original service record, copies of which have been filed on the record. A bare perusal of the original service record has exposed the myth and the entire pyramid cannot be sustained. The service record firstly contains health certificate in which the petitioner has put his thumb impression. In this service record, there is an important entry, which is as under: