Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 11th February, 2011 whereby an intimation dated 11th February, 2011 was sent by the respondent to the petitioner that he is going to retire on 30th June, 2011, and therefore, he may submit duly filled application form before the competent authority for timely payment of retiral benefits.
(2.) SRI Arvind Srivastava submits that as per own record of the respondents the date of birth of the petitioner is 6th March, 1955, and therefore, the age of superannuation being 60 years, the petitioner should retire only on 30th June, 2015. In support of his submission, he relied on the date of birth mentioned in the medical certificate, income tax, PAN Card, driving licence and greetings sent by departmental officers. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 11th February, 2011 intimating his date of retirement as 30th June, 2011 is wholly arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation of 60 years on 30th June, 2011. Sri Vivek Ratan submits that as per service record of the petitioner his date of birth is 1st July, 1951. He submits that at the time of entering into service, the petitioner was medically examined by Medical Officer of the respondent -Corporation on 5th July, 1952 and he certified the age of the petitioner at that time to be 31 years as against the age stated by him to be 29 years. This certificate has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the counter -affidavit which bears the signature of the petitioner. He submits that dispute was raised by the petitioner after about 28 years by making a representation before the Competent Authority. The representation was rejected by an order dated 6th March, 2010 filed as Annexure RA -I. Against this order, the petitioner moved a representation before the higher authority i.e. Deputy General Manager which was rejected by an order dated 28th August, 2010. In both order a finding of fact has been recorded that as per service records the date of birth of the petitioner on the date of joining is recorded as 1st July, 1951. Against the order passed by the Deputy General Manager, the petitioner has moved a further representation which has not been decided since the representation of the petitioner has already been decided twice.
(3.) I have carefully considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties.;