Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard counsel for parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged validity and correctness of impugned order dated 21.3.1996 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). By the aforesaid order, the petitioner has been ordered to retire on 30.6.1996 treating his date of birth as 16.12.1936. THE petitioner claimed that his date of birth is 1938 and he has wrongly been retired from service. Brief facts of the case are that the date of birth of the petitioner according to the entry made in the service book is 16.12.1938. It is said that one Gaya Prasad made a complaint that the petitioner had wrongly given his year of birth as 1938, though he was born in the year 1936. The order impugned in the writ petition recites inter-alia that from the records of the concerned Nagar Palika, it has transpired that the petitioner was born in the year 1936. The petitioner was accordingly informed that he would superannuate on 30.6.1996. According to the petitioner, he immediately made two representations on 27.3.1996 and 2.4.1996 disputing the correctness of the allegations in the impugned order but no decision on his representations was taken. It is also the case of the petitioner that before termination of his services he has neither afforded any opportunity of being heard nor he was given any notice before passing the impugned order and was not even informed about the results of the inquiry which is alleged to have been made by the respondents. It is further submitted that even according to the date of birth which is stated to be 16th December, 1938 irrespective of the dispute whether he was born in the year 1936 or 1938, he cannot be superannuated before 15.12.1996 on the basis of respondents own case.
(3.) AN interim order was granted to the petitioner on 26.6.1996 by which operation of the impugned order dated 21.3.1996 was stayed until 29.7.1996, further directing that respondent No. 2 the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Fatehpur to decide the representation of the petitioner in the meanwhile by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The case of respondents is that the petitioner was appointed as fitter in Nagar Palika, Fatehpur w.e.f. 16.12.1996. At the time of joining of his service, the petitioner had not given particulars about his date of birth and had only given his year of birth as 1936 which was recorded in his service book as well as in character roll and other service records. It is further submitted that the petitioner managed to manipulate entries in the service book and other records showing his date of birth as 16.12.1938 except in the character roll in which the entry pertaining to the date of birth of the petitioner continued to be as 1936.;