U.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) Appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2 has been put in by Sri Rakesh Sharma. As only short question is involved, the case is being finally disposed of with the consent of the counsel for both the parties. The Public Services Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the change of his date of retirement. According to opposite party in view of entry in his service book he was to retire at the age of sixty years on 30-11-1992 but his date of birth has been wrongly changed as 19-1-1924 in place of 15-1-1932.
(2.) On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that in case opposite party's contention is accepted, it would mean that he was only ten years of age when he had entered in service. It appears that the petitioner was initially employed in S.A.C. II Battalion in the State Government which later on merge with the P.A.C. He met with an accident as a result of which his leg had been amputated in the year 1944. On 15-10-1963 he was given a part time job as water boy in the Roadways Department and he was made regular on 9-3-1969. He was medically examined on 15-11-1979 and according to the report of the Chief Medical Officer his age on that date was 47 years and accordingly 15-11-1932 was recorded as his date of birth in the service book. On 31-1-1984 he received a communication that he would stand retired on 31-1-1984 and accordingly he was retired.
(3.) Before the Public services Tribunal record was produced and the Tribunal observed that his date of birth should be deemed as 15-11-1932 which was mentioned in the service book. Before the Public Services Tribunal no explanation was furnished as to how the date of birth was changed and another date i.e. 19-1-1924 was entered. Before the Tribunal it was stated that it was done on the basis of medical certificate 19-11-1966. It is not in dispute that this change was done without associating the opposite party with it. Subsequently he was again medically examined in 1979 also and as such there were two conflicting medical reports. Obviously without giving opportunity to opposite party, his date of birth could not be recorded or changed. As such there appears to be no good ground for interference with the order passed by the Tribunal.;