NANDU PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the wrong recording of his date of birth in service record and consequential his superannuation from 31.1.2010.

(3.) The petitioner's contention is that in his school certificate, wrong date of birth was mentioned as 27th January, 1950 and when he got the certificate containing wrong date of birth in the year 1966, he immediately approached the concerned Board for correction in his^ date of birth. However, he waited for sixteen years and ultimately the Board corrected his date of birth on 6th February, 1982. In the meanwhile the petitioner appeared in the competitive examination for selection in the State Police Administrative Service in the year 1983 and selected in said competitive examination and was given appointment on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and he joined the service on 15.1.1976. Therefore, it is clear that petitioner got correction in his date of birth in the school certificate after about more than six years from his joining in service, that too in the Police Department and furthermore, on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner's contention is that immediately after correction in his date of birth made by the Board on 6th February, 1982, within no time on 18th February, 1982 he applied to the department for correction in his date of birth in service record. The petitioner's further contention is that the petitioner's matter for correction of his date of birth remained pending before the State Government and ultimately in the year 2009 he moved an application under the Right to Information Act and obtained the copies of the documents of the department dealing his case for correction in date of birth and then he came to know that in fact, at various levels his case was recommended for correction in date of birth and further (sic) to know in the year 2009 that he was proposed to retire on the basis of wrong date of birth dated 27th January, 1950, then he approached this Court by filing W.P(S) No. 5987 of 2009 which was decided by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2009 and petitioner was directed to submit a fresh representation to the Principal Secretary with the direction that the Principal Secretary shall consider the case of the petitioner and shall pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of representation. The petitioner's representation was rejected by the Principal Secretary on 13th January, 2010.