R.B.MISRA,J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 24 -2 -1987 and 4 -6 -1991 passed by the General Manager with a further prayer seeking directions to the respondents to treat the petitioner in service as a Fitter in 'Blow Room General Shift Mill' No. 1 as Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. Naini, Allahabad up to the year 1995.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Fitter in Blow Room of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Limited, Naini, Allahabad (in short called 'the Mills'), which is owned and controlled by the Union of India. In the service card and identity card the age of the petitioner was recorded year 1935, however, in the provident fund the date of birth of the petitioner had been shown year 1928 and taking the same, the petitioner had been made to retire w.e.f. 25 -2 -1987 i.e. at the age of 58 years by an order dated 24 -2 -1987 (Annexure -7). The petitioner claims on the basis of one Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment) Rules, 1983 that the age of retirement recorded in service record and service card at item Nos. 3 and 37 respectively is the exclusive proof of the age of superannuation.
(3.) THE petitioner filed a writ petition No. 8908/87 and after exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits, the same was finally disposed on 20 -2 -1991 (Annexure -9) directing the General Manager to decide the date of birth on the basis of evidences. In this order dated 20 -2 -1991 the High Court has been pleased to observe as below : “After examining the counter -affidavit, it is clear that the question of date of birth of the petitioner is the disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into by the Court in this petition. However, the petitioner may make representation now again to the General Manager giving full facts about the date of birth supported by evidence. In case such a representation is made along with the certified copy of the order passed by this Court today, the respondent No. 5 is directed to decide the same within a period of three months from the date of representation of the representation in accordance with law.” ;