Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Sharma - (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30 -12 -2010, passed by the Personnel Officer (Tech. Estt.), Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (herein after 'the Nigam') whereby a decision was taken that in view of initial recording of petitioner's date of birth in his service book as 1 -3 -1949, he was to superannuate on 28 -2 -2009 on attaining the age of 60 years. It was also recorded that the petitioner would henceforth retired effective 28 -2 -2009 and the excess amount paid to him as salary upto December, 2010 be recovered. A challenge has also been made to the consequential order dated 31 -12 -2010 passed by the Assistant Engineer (O&M) JVVNL Shahpura Jaipur, where under the petitioner was retired effective 28 -2 -2009 on attaining age of 60 years with reference to his initially recorded date of birth as 1 -3 -1949. The petitioner thereupon was entitled to retiral benefits but the excess amount paid as salary was to be recovered. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Helper on Muster roll as daily rated employee on 1 -6 -1971. Thereafter the petitioner was regularised on the post of Helper -II on 1 -4 -1974, and was subsequently promoted first to the post of Helper -I and then on the post of Line Man -II on 14 -7 -2010. Vide letter dated 13 -1 -2010, the Superintending Engineer (JPDC) of the Nigam required an in house clarification with regard to the discrepancy in the petitioner's date of birth in his service book, inasmuch as while it was first recorded in service book as 1 -3 -1949, subsequently it was altered as 1 -9 -1952. Clarification was sought as to what was the material available for alteration of petitioner's date of birth in his service book from as 1 -3 -1949 to 1 -9 -1952. Following the internal inquiry within the office of the Nigam, show cause notice dated 9 -6 -2010 was issued to the petitioner to clarify as to why he should not be retired in view of his having attained the age of superannuation on 28 -2 -2009 as per the date of birth first recorded with the respondent Nigam. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice and submitted that as per Ration -card prepared in 2006, his age was 55 years and he was not due to retire till attaining the age of 60 years. It was submitted that the petitioner's date of birth was in fact 1 -9 -1952 as indicated in his PAN card as issued by the Income -tax Department. The petitioner stated on the askance of the Nigam, he has appeared before the Medical Board for ascertainment of his age, and the Medical Board vide its report dated 11 -10 -2010 has ascertained his age as 58 years on that date. It was submitted that petitioner's actual date of birth was 1 -9 -1952 and not 1 -3 -1949. The reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice rejected and the impugned orders passed.
(2.) THE petitioner in this petition has reiterated the above facts and submitted that a wrong decision has been taken by the respondent Nigam to treat the petitioner's date of birth as 1 -3 -1949 instead of 1 -9 -1952 and to retire him on 28 -2 -2009, as also to recover the amount of salary paid to the petitioner after 28 -2 -2009 upto 31 -12 -2010. In reply to the writ petition the respondent Nigam has submitted that as per the information furnished by the petitioner in the first instance his date of birth in the service book was recorded as 1 -3 -1949, but subsequently was unauthorisedly changed to 1 -9 -1952. It has been submitted that the fact of unauthorised alteration of date of birth in the service book came to the knowledge of the Nigam in the year 2010 when the service record of all the Assistant Grade -II was called for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade -I Lineman. On internal inquiry by the department it was found that in the first instance petitioner's date of birth in the service book was recorded as 1 -3 -1949, and was subsequently altered as 1 -9 -1952 purportedly on the basis of Astrological chart (Janma Patri), which evidence was not of any probative worth.
(3.) IT has been submitted that the Chief Personnel Officer of the Nigam vide order dated 24 -4 -2007 has noted the factum of rampant unauthorised alteration of dates of birth of employees' in their service books and to stern the tide of such activity ordered that without the approval of the Managing Director of the Nigam, no alteration of date of birth in service book in respect of any employee would be permissible. It is submitted that under the said order a direction was issued to all Heads of the Department of the Nigam to follow the procedure set out to ensure that any alteration of date of birth recorded in service book would only be on authentic material of probative worth, and the recommendation of the Head of the Department thereupon would have to be approved by the Managing Director of the Nigam before the change is officially recorded.;