LAXMI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case entered the service of the Government of Rajasthan as a Motor Vehicles (Mechanical) Inspector in the Transport Department on March 28, 1952. The petitioner continued to bold the post of Mechanical Inspector-cum-Transport Inspector till July 29, 1972 when he was relieved from service under telephonic instructions from the Director of Transport, Rajasthan. The petitioner on enquiry came to know that the Director of Transport had passed an order on July 29, 1972 directing that the petitioner be retired from service, as he had already attained the age of superannuation. Thereupon the petitioner made representations, but as they went unheeded, he filed the present writ petition in this court.

(2.) The principal grievance of the petitioner is that no enquiry whatsoever was made by the Director of Transport in respect of the date of birth of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Nov. 9, 1923 is the date of bis birth and thus according to him, he had not attained the age of superannuation till he was retired and as such he could not have been retired then from Government service on the alleged ground of his attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has produced certain material in connection with his date of birth and his present age, bur for the reasons, which I shall hereinafter refer to, it would be neither necessary nor proper for me in these proceedings to consider the entire material which has been placed on record by the petitioner as well as by the respondents, in respect of the age of the petitioner. The respondents' case is that the date of birth mentioned in the petitioner's service book has been interpolated by some one so as to read as Dec. 19, 1923 and on account of the aforesaid tempering with the date of birth of the petitioner, as mentioned in his service book, the Director of Transport relied upon the date specified by the petitioner himself in the declaration which he submitted in respect of the first insurance policy obtained by him from the State Insurance Department. The petitioner had mentioned March 10, 1914 as his date of birth in the declaration submitted by him in the State Insurance Department and accepting it to be the correct date of birth of the petitioner, the Director of Transport by his order dated July 28, 1972 came to the conclusion that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation and, therefore, he directed that the petitioner be retired from Government service. It was in pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the Director of Transport that the order dated July 29, 19 72 was issued. Thus the case of the respondents is that the petitioner was rightly retired from Government service on attaining me age of superannuation. The respondents have further contended that a notice was issued to the petitioner on Oct. 22, 1970 by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kota in whose office the petitioner was then wo king, informing him that the date of his birth, as mentioned in the service book of the petitioner, contained an over-writing and asking the petitioner to submit a certificate of the date of his birth. The petitioner's contention is that he did not receive the aforesaid letter alleged to have been sent to him by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kota on Oct. 22, 1970, while the respondents contend that the aforesaid letter was duly delivered to the petitioner and that the petitioner did not submit a certificate regarding the date of his birth as demanded from him. The respondents, therefore, contend that as the petitioner failed to produce relevant material, in respect of his date of birth inspite of the demand made upon him, the Director of Transport, Rajasthan determined the date of his birth with reference to the original declaration filed by the petitioner himself in the State Insurance Department.

(3.) The service book of the petitioner has been produced before me by the learned Deputy Government Advocate in pursuance of the order of this court dated March 17, 1976 and there is no doubt that there is interpolation and over-writing in the month and year of the date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in column No. 5 of his service book. In these circumstances, it might be proper for the Director of Transport to determine the date of birth of the petitioner, completely overlooking the entry relating to the date of birth as made in the service book of the petitioner, because the interpolated entry could be entirely ignored.