MD. LIYAKAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the Respondent No. 2 -Municipality as a Labour/Coolie in the year 1967 as alleged by the petitioner and in the year 1968 as per the Reply filed by the Respondents. His Service Book was prepared in the year 1975, wherein, his date of birth was recorded as 6.10.1945. Petitioner was informed vide letter No. 260 dated 13.02.2003 that he is going to retire on 06th of October, 2003 on attaining 58 years of age. It is alleged that on receipt of the aforesaid letter, petitioner came to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the Service Book, whereas his correct date of birth is 13.02.1952. He made a representation before the Special Officer, Hazaribagh Municipality for correction of the date of birth on the basis of School Transfer Certificate, wherein his date of birth is recorded as 13.02.1952. On this representation, the Special Officer, Hazaribagh Municipality referred the petitioner's matter to the Civil Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh for constitution of the Medical Board for ascertaining the age of the petitioner in view of the dispute raised. The Medical Board after conducting Medical Examination of the petitioner reported vide letter dated 02nd of September, 2003 that the age of the petitioner as on 23rd of August, 2003 i.e. the date of examination was about 53 years. In the meanwhile, petitioner has retired from Service on the basis of the date of birth as recorded in his service Book. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for declaring the action of the Respondents retiring the petitioner as illegal with a further direction to allow the petitioner to work on the basis of the age determined by the Medical Board as 53 years as on 23rd of August, 2000.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner is being resisted by the Respondents on the ground that as per the Service Book of the petitioner opened in the year 1975, his date of birth recorded is 06th of October, 1945 and it also contains his Thumb impression. It is, accordingly, stated that the date of birth has been rightly recorded. Respondents have also disputed the School Transfer Certificate and it is stated that the same was allegedly issued in the year 1965, whereas petitioner's date of birth was recorded in the year 1975 in the service record. This clearly indicates that this Certificate has been managed thereafter. It is further stated that the Certificate is subject to verification. It is astonishing that there is no whisper about the Medical examination of the petitioner, which was conducted at the instance of Respondent -Municipality. It is, therefore, considered that the Respondents have not disputed either the allegation of the petitioner of his Medical examination by the Medical Board or age as determined by the Medical Board. The only plea raised by the Respondents is that under Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules, the date of birth once recorded in the Service Book cannot be altered. It is further stated that no representation for rectification of mistake in the date of birth can be entertained after 10 years of the date of entry into the Government Service.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that 06.10.1945 is the date of birth recorded in the service record of the petitioner at the time of his entry into the service of the Municipality. It is also admitted position that on the representation of the petitioner made in the year 2003, he was referred to the Medical Board by the Special Officer, Hazaribagh Municipality and the Medical Board has determined his age about 53 years as on 23rd of August, 2003.