Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Maneesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri Namit Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The issue involved in the instant writ petition is as to whether date of birth of the petitioner has correctly been recorded in the records of Municipal Corporation, Lucknow and as to whether he has been rightly allowed to retire on his attaining the age of superannuation treating his date of birth to be 17.6.1952.
(2.) THE petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Line -man by the then Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow and by means of order dated 6.3.1979 he was appointed on the said post. The educational qualification of the petitioner is Class 9th passed. He is also possessed with two years course of training at Industrial Training Institute, Lucknow in the trade of Wireman. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that in the application form for appointment and in all the certificates pertaining to his educational qualification submitted by him his date of birth is recorded as 17.6.1954. However, while incorporating the same in his service book authorities of the Nagar Mahapalika (Now Nagar Nigam) have wrongly mentioned it to be 17.6.1952 in place of 17.6.1954. The petitioner gave a representation on 28.9.1993 requesting the respondent No. 4 -Executive Engineer, Electrical/Mechanical, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow to correct the date of birth in his service book in accordance with the date of birth recorded in the testimonials submitted by him in the department. However, the said request of the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner ultimately again represented on 18.6.2009 before the respondent No. 4 seeking correction of his date of birth in his service book and prayed that it be mentioned as 17.6.1954 in place of 17.6.1952. On the said representation made by the petitioner, the order dated 11.8.2009 has been passed by the respondent No. 4 -Executive Engineer, Electrical/Mechanical, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow whereby claim of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth has been rejected. It is this order dated 11.8.2009 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner while arguing the case has drawn attention of the Court on the noting which is contained in annexure No. 11 to the writ petition wherein it has clearly been indicated that date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in all the certificates is 17.6.1954 whereas in the service book the same has been recorded to be 17.6.1952.;