UNION OF INDIA Vs. TEJARAM GEHLOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To assail validity of the orders dated 31.5.2016 and 17.5.2016 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Applications No.290/00120/2015 and 290/00119/2014 respectively, these petitions for writ are preferred.

(2.) Succinctly, facts of the case are that the respondent original applicant entered in service of the respondents on 15.7.1977. At the time of appointment he submitted an affidavit with assertion that his date of birth is 16.9.1950. The date of birth of the respondent original applicant subsequently in certain other documents was shown as 16.9.1956. In his service record too the date of birth in numbers is shown as 16.9.1956, but in script it is mentioned as "lkSyg flrEcj mUuhl lkS ipkl" The petitioners respondent under the order Anx.1 decided to retire the respondent original applicant from service w.e.f. 23.8.2013 with specific assertion that he attained the age of retirement on 30.9.2010, but remain in service erroneously uptil 23.8.2013. An order was also passed to have recovery of wages paid to the respondent original applicant for a period of 2 years, 10 months and 23 days, said to be the period for which he served in excess. Prior to that, the respondent original applicant under an application dated 27.6.2013 made a request to the appointing authority to allow voluntary retirement to him. Being failed to have voluntary retirement from service and also being aggrieved by the decision of the petitioners respondent to treat 16.9.1950 as the date of birth, the respondent original applicant preferred two original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, those came to be accepted under the judgments impugned.

(3.) Learned Tribunal, after considering the record available, arrived at the conclusion that the entries made in service record, other relevant documents and the certificate given by a competent medical practitioner is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the date of birth of the respondent original applicant is 16.9.1956, thus, he is entitled to remain in service upto 16.9.2016. Being aggrieved by the same these petitions for writ are preferred.