PUSPA RANI CHAKRABARTY Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-employee died and his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record. This is an appeal directed against the judgment, dated March 19, 1981, passed by the learned single Judge in C.R. No. 9873 (W) of 1978, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that whether the age given in the matriculation certificate is the correct date of birth or given in service record, are all questions of fact which this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not inquire.

(2.) Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner-appellant retired from service of Allahabad Bank in December 1978 on attaining the age of superannuation after having been given two extensions of one year each. The writ-petitioner filed the present petition for a direction to the bank to correct his date of birth in service record in conformity with the matriculation certificate. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent bank pointed out that the petitioner's date of birth has been recorded while he entered the bank's service and that all the dates were filed in by the petitioner himself. Therefore, whatever date of birth had been recorded in the service record shall govern the service of the petitioner and subsequent application filed by him for correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service career cannot be entertained. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that these are disputed questions of fact and that cannot be gone into under writ jurisdiction.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner while entering into service gave his date of birth as January 1, 1918. Since the entries were made in his own hand writing and he served the bank with those entries and did not wake up to correct that date of birth till he attained the age of superannuation, therefore, now he cannot be permitted to turn back at the fag end of his career to challenge the entry in his service record of the date of birth. The view taken by the learned single Judge appears to be correct and there is no ground to interfere in the appeal.