RAKESH TIWARI,J. - (1.) THE petitioner was a Driver/Instructor in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). He retired from service on 24 -9 -1991 in pursuance of an order passed by the Regional Manager of the Corporation.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that his date of birth is 28 -6 -1937 but it is wrongly recorded in his service book as 18 -10 -1933 and as such the order of retirement of the petitioner at the age of 58 years is illegal. At the time of admission of the petition the following interim order was passed on 16 -11 -1991: In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be retired from service till he attains the age of 60 years from the service record or 31 -10 -1993 whichever is earlier.
(3.) THE issue germane to the controversy involved in the writ petition is as to whether actual date of birth recorded in the certificate will be basis for counting the age of superannuation. The petitioner contends that the Corporation is an Industrial establishment within the meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Relying upon the case of The U.P. State Electricity Board and another v. Hari Shanker Jain and others, AIR 1979 SC 65, it is contended that the regulations framed by the Corporation are not applicable as they were not notified under Section 13 -B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. On the basis, it is submitted that the higher age of retirement at the age of 60 years prescribed in the standing orders adopted by the Corporation in respect of some of its units such as Central Workshop, Kanpur, Kalpi and Juhi, will govern the petitioner and the regulations, which provides lower age of retirement at the age of 58 years is not applicable in the case of the petitioner.;