R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Ajai Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents. In this writ petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have Been exchanged and both the learned counsel are agreed that this writ petition may be heard and finally disposed of at this stage.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was employed on 18th May, 1949 as a work charged daily wage employee by respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by action of the respondents in retiring him on 30th June, 1989 on the basis of the notice, dated 9th May, 1989 which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner made a representation on 28th September, 1988 and along with this representation he filed a school leaving certificate and affidavit, dated 27th September, 1988. The school leaving certificate has been issued on 1st September, 1988 by the Basic Siksha Parishad, Barabanki and the certificate has been signed by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Barabanki. According to this certificate the date of birth of the petitioner is 3rd January, 1931. It has also been mentioned in the certificate that the language of petitioner was Urdu and he left the school from Class 1st. In his affidavit petitioner has stated that at the time he was employed, he had not been asked to give any certificate of date of birth. In the affidavit it has also been said by petitioner that he studied in Primary School in Tehsil Hajdscash, district Barabanki and the certificate has been issued to him by Basic Siksha Parishad, Barabanki. The representation, dated 28th September and the school leaving certificate, dated 1st September, 1988 and affidavit, dated 27.9.1988 have been filed as Annexures-1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition. As no orders were passed on this representation petitioner filed a second representation on 4th October, 1988 and again submitted the school leaving certificate and the affidavit. This representation is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. As the petitioner did not receive any communication about the decision taken on his representation, he filed a writ petition in this Court and the Division Bench vide order, dated 5th May, 1989 directed the respondent to decide the representation filed by petitioner within a period of one month. The order of this Court has been filed as Annexure-5 to this writ petition. Petitioner then filed an application, dated 11th May, 1989 along with the order of the Court, dated 5.5.1989 and a copy of the school leaving certificate and a copy of the representation, dated 28th September, 1988 and 4th October, 1988. However the petitioner was already served with a notice, dated 9th May, 1989 intimating him that he shall attain the age of superannuation on 30th June 1989. The representation filed by petitioner has been decided by respondent No. 2 Deputy General Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Central Workshop, Kanpur, vide order, dated 29th May, 1989. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected.
(3.) In the order, dated 29th May, 1989 the representation filed by petitioner on 4th October, 1988 has been referred to. It has been said in the order that the petitioner had not given any certificate regarding his date of birth at the time of appointment nor it has filed at any time subsequent thereto. It has been further said that it is known to the petitioner that in case of illiterate employees and those who have no certificate or affidavit showing their date of birth. The age mentioned in the record of Employees' State Insurance Corporation is taken to be correct, then it has been said that the petitioner was aware about the age mentioned in the record of Employees' State Insurance Corporation. Hence a consideration at this stage is not possible as the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation. With the aforesaid reasoning the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.;