B.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) The appeal has been reported to be time barred by two days. The delay has been successfully explained by the appellants and after having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the grounds taken for explaining the delay in the appeal, we find that sufficient ground has been made out for condoning the same. Accordingly, the application for delay condonation is allowed and the appeal is being proceeded with on merits.
(2.) The dispute essentially in this special appeal is about the date of birth of the solitary respondent Gauri Shanker Chaturvedi which was altered by the then Ixecutive Engineer on an application been moved by the respondent vide order dated 27/4/2004. The claim of the respondent was that his correct date of birth was 01/6/1948. The respondent therefore applied for the alteration in the date Of birth as recorded in the service book. As a consequence of this alteration the respondent would stand to gain continuance in service for three years and would have retired in the year 2008 instead of in 2005. Later on the said correction which was carried out was cancelled under the orders of the Chief Engineer dated 18/1/2005, whereby five such employees including the respondent, who had succeeded in getting their date of birth as recorded in the service book altered, were ordered to be retired on the basis of the original date of birth as was previously recorded in their service book. Pursuant to the order of the Chief Engineer, the appellant No. 3 issued formal orders on 30/4/2005 for retiring the respondent. On coming to know about this order the respondent moved an application before the Executive Engineer that there is absolutely no basis for Implementing the said direction of the Chief Engineer as his date of birth has already been corrected and further such incorrect recording of date of birth has been altered in the case of almost 50 percent of the work charge employees of the establishment and hence no action is required to be taken against the respondent-petitioner. Subsequently, the order dated 27/4/2004 has been cancelled by the appellants on 8/11/2005.
(3.) Aggrieved, by the aforesaid action of the appellants, the respondent-petitioner instituted the writ petition giving rise to the present special appeal on the ground that the order passed by the appellants was in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the appellants themselves had resorted to correction of date of birth in the case of at least 50 percent of the employees in the establishment, hence they could not discriminate the respondent-petitioner on the grounds taken by them.;