M.L. Bhatt, J. - (1.) THE petitioner's age of superannuation is 60 years He claims that he can be superannuated on the basis of his date of birth, which is 4th May, 1932. The order of retirement of the petitioner on the basis of his date of birth dated 19 -6 -1929 is said to be bad, It is submitted by the petitioner that his date of birth entered in the service book as 19 -6 -1929 was without any basis. His real date of birth is 4th May, 1932. In support of his contention he relies on school leaving certificate, a photostat copy whereof is placed on the record. It is contended by the petitioner that he came to know for the first time in the second week of April, 1989 regarding the entry about his date of birth in his service book. That entry is said to be wrong. He was orally informed that his service record was being sent for preparation of his pension case as the petitioner would attain the age of superannuation in the month of June, 1989. Thereafter he is said to have made enquiry about his real date of birth which, according to the petitioner was 4th May, 1932. He thereupon made a representation on 27 -4 -1989 to the respondent No. 4 for redressal of his grievances. He is said to have annexure the transfer certificate of Junior Basic Vidyalaya, Leelapur, district Azamgarh along with the representation. A copy of the representation is placed on the record as Annexure 2. The said representation has not been decided as yet. Thereafter he filed present writ petition.
(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner that one Raj Narain Mishra, Collection Room, had also made a representation to the District Magistrate on the basis of his transfer certificate of Junior Basic Vidyalaya and his date of birth was corrected. The petitioner's date of birth has not been corrected though he has produced ample proof for its correction On the basis of his assertions in the writ petition he submits that his date of superannuation would be 3 -5 -1992 and not 18 -6 -1989 on which date he was retired. No counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondents though time for filing counter affidavit was granted, The writ petition is, therefore, to be decided without counter -affidavit.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the Standing Counsel The Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner's date of birth cannot be corrected by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. He also submitted that after the petitioner's retirement he has filed the writ petition and raised a dispute about his date of birth, which dispute cannot be considered by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. However, it was stated by the learned standing counsel that the petitioner may pursue the representation which he has filed as per his own assertions on 27 -4 -1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner was entered on no evidence in his service book therefore, the school leaving certificate should be treated as conclusive proof with regard to the petitioner, date of birth.;