- (1.) HEARD Sri Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the re spondents.
(2.) THIS is a second round of. liti gation for the petitioner. Initially the petitioner had filed a writ petition be fore this Court being Writ Petition No. 134 of 2006 (S/s) where the petitioner had stated that although he has retired as a class IV employee from Uttarakhand Power Corporation on. 15-6-2004 (w. e. f. 30-11-2004), yet he is not being given pension, though he is entitled for pensioner benefits un der the service Rules. The said writ pe tition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 15-2-2006 holding that pension is a right of the petitioner and not a bounty and further directed the re spondents "to release pension and other retrial dues within two months 3leather after the receipt of the certified copy of this order". All the same, instead of complying with the aforesaid orders of this Court, the respondent-Corporation has slapped an order on the petitioner, dated 25-11-2005 according to which after retirement of the petitioner, it came to the knowledge of the Corpo ration after examining the service records that the initial date of birth recorded in the service book of the petitioner was 1-7-1934 (as against 19-11-1944 claimed by the petitioner) and since this was the initial date of birth recorded and any change in this date of birth was not permissible, the peti tioner should have retired in June, 1994 after reaching 60 years of age. Therefore, the date of superannuation of the petitioner was 30-6-1994 and the pension of the petitioner would be determined as per the last salary drawn on the said date by the peti tioner. It is this order dated 25-11-2005 which the petitioner has chal lenged before this Court in the present writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner was an employee of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. The petitioner was initially appointed in the U. P. Electric ity Board (as it was then) as Peon on 9-5-1962. The controversy in the present writ petition is with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, his date of birth, which is recorded in his service book, is 19-11-1944 whereas according to the Power Corporation, the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 1-7-1934 which was subsequently cor rected as 19-11-1944 and, therefore, since there is no provision for correc tion in the service record after record ing the date of birth of the employee, the correct date of birth of the petitioner will be treated as 1-7-1934. The respondent-Corporation has admitted that the petitioner did work in the Cor poration till 2004, but this was on a wrong assumption regarding his date of birth, which has now been corrected vide order dated 25-11-2005. The Corporation asserts that after the pe titioner retired in 2004, it came to the knowledge of the Corporation that the initial date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1-7-1934 and since it was subsequently corrected to 19-11-2004 (sic, 1944), an order was passed on 25-11-2005 (post retirement of the petitioner) wherein service benefits and the fixation of the pension, etc. of the petitioner have to be now done treating his date of birth as 11-7-1934 and his date of retirement as 30-6-1994, instead of 30-11-2004. The contention of the petitioner is that he was illiterate the time of his entry in service and he had not done his High School, therefore, no High School certificate was produced and his date of birth was recorded initially as 1-7-1934 when he got his appoint ment, which was, in fact, his wrong date of birth. Although the petitioner did not make any effort to get his date of birth corrected, it was, however, noted by his superior officers and on 3-11-1962, the then Superintending Engineer of Hydel Yamuna Circle, Dehradun wrote a letter to the Medi cal Officer In-Charge Civil Hospital, Dehradun as follows : "the following members of in ferior staff who are working in this office, could not produce their horoscopes or any other proof in support of their age and dates of birth. Kindly ex amine them and intimate their age to the undersigned. The in cumbents are being directed to present themselves before you in this connection. 1. Sri Ram Samujh 2. Sri Top Bahadur 3. Sri Gauri Datt 4. Sri Amar Singh
(3.) SRI Chandra Singh" 5. Consequent to the said letter, the petitioner was medically examined and as per the record, an opinion was given by the concerned Medical Officer that after the X-ray examination of the body of the petitioner, his age seems to be 18 years. Consequently, in the service book of the petitioner, 19-11-2004 (sic, 1944) was recorded as his date of birth. The main thrust of the petitioner is that he did not move any applica tion for correction in his service record. It was done vide letter dated 3-11-1962 of the Superintending. Engineer and consequent to it, after a medical ex amination, entries were made in the service record of the petitioner. Indeed it is not a case where either the serv ice book entries as regarding the date of birth have been changed by any ef fort made by the incumbent himself nor is it a case where said entries are changed when the incumbent is on the verge of his retirement. Therefore, it appears to be a perfectly bona fide case where initial 'wrong' entries in the service book have been 'corrected', that too promptly and on direction of the Superintending Engineer of the Electricity Board (as it was then ).;