S.P. Talukdar, J. - (1.) Grievances of the petitioner, as ventilated in the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution, may briefly be stated as follows: - - Petitioner joined as a Security Guard in Beturidishergarh Colliery in 1972. With nationalization of colliery, the petitioner as well as other employees were transferred to the Eastern Coalfields Limited in 1973.. In response to the direction, petitioner deposited his Identity Card, two passport size photographs as well as other relevant documents in his office and within a few days, he was given a new Identity Card. His date of birth was recorded as 10th July, 1950 in the service book and provident fund records. In his new Identity Card, his age was recorded as 23 years in 1972. In 1977, he was transferred to Samdi Colliery, where he applied for promotion declaring his year of birth as 1950 and this was duly accepted. He was promoted to the post of Havilder on 2.5.1978. In 1987, he was asked to verify the service excerpts, prepared by the office. He did not find anything wrong there. To his utter shock and surprise, he was served with a notice of superannuation asking him to retire w.e.f. 30th April, 2006. This was on the basis of wrong recording of his date of birth as 5th of April, 1946 at the time of computerization of the service particulars.
(2.) In the year 2003, 'B' form register was issued where too the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 10th July, 1950. petitioner had no occasion for raising any objection since the year of birth was correctly recorded.
(3.) On receipt of the notice of superannuation, the petitioner himself as well as through the Union took up the matter with the management without, however, any change in complexion. The petitioner was never asked to appear before any Age Determination Committee or Apex Medical Board for determination of his age. Moreover, as per the prevailing practice, in absence of any dispute being raised by an employee in connection with the entries in the service record excerpts, the authority has no power to alter the date of birth of any employee nor it can send an employee for reassessment of age. By compelling the petitioner to retire quite well before his attainment of the age of retirement was in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner, thus, was deprived of his livelihood and was consequently denied his right to live with dignity.;