Samir Kumar Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This application being moved upon notice, Mr. Sinha learned Advocate, appear on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 8. The respondent No. 8 is added as party respondent to the writ proceeding on the oral prayer of Mr. Das which is not objected to by Mr. Sinha. After hearing Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner and after hearing Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate on behalf of the appearing respondents, I deem it just and proper to dispose of the application itself without issuance of any rule. It is recorded at this stage that since the Union of India is not a necessary party service of notice on the said respondent No. 1 is dispensed with on the prayer of Mr. Das.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner, as raised in the present writ application, is that although a notice of superannuation dated 30.7.83 has been served, his representations for correction of his date of birth made in the year, 1964 as also in the year, 1983 have not been considered by the respondents. In those representations the petitioner endeavoured to persuade the authorities to alter the recorded date of birth on the basis of certain documents which he wanted to produce for consideration of the said authorities. Inspite of lapse of about two decades, between the date of the first representation and the order of superannuation, the authorities have not bestowed any consideration on such representations or have those been disposed of. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the appearing respondents, it appears that the facts of such representations having been made are not disputed, but certain reasons are sough; to be given in justification of the authorities acting upon the recorded date of birth.
(3.) In my view, it will not be in conformity with the principles of natural justice to deprive the petitioner of his rights to continue in employment without affording him reasonable opportunity of hearing and producing materials in support of the alteration in the date of birth as prayed for by him. A circular has been produced by Mr. Das showing that the company also, in order to avoid complications, desired that rayer for alteration of the date of birth should be brought well in advance of the date of retirement and at least before one year of the date of retirement. In this particular date the first representation was made in the year 1964 and as such it is only just and proper that before the order of retirement is given effect to, the petitioner's representations are disposed of by the respondents in accordance with law a id upon sympathetic consideration as. employers after giving the petitioner an opportunity of producing the documents on which he wants to rely, in support of the claimed date of birth. I do not of course, accept the propriety of Das's apprehension that from the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition it is clear that the authorities have already come to a decision, I hope that such consideration will be made with an open mind and as expeditiously as possible I also direct that the impugned notice of retirement should I not be given effect to until the disposal of the petitioner's representations in the light of my observations above. I pass this order particularly upon consideration of the failure on the part of the employers to dispose of the representations since 1964. I also make it clear that the petitioner should co-operate with the employers in the matter of early disposal of the representations. The application is thus disposed of without any order as to costs.;