- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri A. K. Tiwari and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
(2.) The petitioner retired as a class IV employee. After his retirement at the time of final payments with regard to the post retiral benefits, certain deductions were made on the ground that he has been allowed to work in excess of the date of superannuation for 2 years and, as such, the said amount has been recovered.
(3.) The petitioner filed this writ petition with the allegation that the change in the date of birth was processed by the competent authority after intimating it to the educational authorities, who have certified the date of birth of the petitioner as 7.1.1942. In view of this, the petitioner was entitled to continue for another 2 years and the respondents have consciously paid the salary to the petitioner after the date of birth was corrected in the service-book in the year 1999 itself. Sri Tiwari has invited the attention of the Court to Annexures-4 and 5 of the writ petition to contend that the petitioner's certificate relating to date of birth was verified by the Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad, whereafter the District Inspector of Schools had raised a query on 1.8.2000 to which a proper reply was given by the Manager on 5.8.2000. It is, thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools continued to pay the salary to the petitioner and, therefore, it will be presumed that the educational authorities had accepted the change of date of birth as brought about in the service-book.;