(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the denial of benefit of salary for the period for which the petitioner admittedly did not work. However, because of the order of superannuation passed by the respondent which was set aside by the learned Single Judge in view of the controversy raised by the appellant with respect to date of birth which was found to be wrongly entered in the service record and the petitioner's date of birth was declared to be 10.07.1950 which was recorded in the Matriculation certificate.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the petitioner -appellant was wrongfully denied that benefit. It is submitted that the petitioner when came to know about the wrong entry of his date of birth in service record and objections were invited, the petitioner informed the Management in the year 1987 about his correct date of birth. The petitioner -appellant submitted a duplicate copy of the Matriculation certificate and even then the petitioner was not communicated about the rejection of his claim, therefore, the petitioner approached the Court in the year 2003. In this view of the matter, it was the duty of the employer to correct the date of birth according to the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate and employer failed to comply with the ratio given in the case of Kamta Pandey Versus M/s B.C.C.L., which is of Full Bench judgment reported in (2007) 3 JLJR 726, wherein also the full salary was awarded in a case where the date of birth was not corrected by the management.