Mathur, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 30 May 1989, (annexure 4) whereby be was sought to be retired with effect from 31 July 1989. According to the petitioner, he was born in the year 1930 and the department was wrongly treating his year of birth as 1929. The learned counsel for the State was directed to produce the service record of the petitioner which he did today. The record indicates that the petitioner's year of birth was originally recorded as 1930 and thereafter medical opinion was sought and on the basis thereof the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 21 July 1929. This appears to have been done in the year 1988. Obviously, at this stage the ossification of bones had already set in and at this stage no definite opinion about the date o f birth could have been given by the medical experts. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there was no occasion at that late stage to alter the petitioner's year of birth from 1930 to 1929. In a separate statement made today the learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the date and month of birth recorded in the petitioner's service record. Once the amendment in the year of the birth is held to be illegal the petitioner's date of birth will have to be treated as 21 July 1930.
(2.) There is no dispute that the petitioner being a Class IV employee is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 nears. The order of retirement was passed before the petitioner reached that age and accordingly the said order cannot he sustained.
(3.) In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 30 May 1989 (annexure 4), relining the petitioner with effect from 31 July 1989, is hereby quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years treating his date of birth as 21 July 1930, unless his services are dispensed with by termination, removal or dismissal from service or compulsory retirement. There shall be no order as to costs.;