MISRA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who had been appointed as a helper in the Electric and Mechanical Department in the year 1949, was absorbed in the Rajasthan State electricity Board as Helper where he worked up-till the year 1990 and he was retired from the services of the Board after attaining the age of 58 year taking his date of birth as 15th June 1931. THE petitioner felt seriously aggrieved of the order his retirement and therefore raised a dispute that his date of birth was recorded in the service book as 12th November 1940 due to which he had not attained the age of superannuation in the year 1990 and 8 years of service was still left to the credit of the petitioner. THE petitioner after having retired from service and after availing all the retiral benefits, filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 5. 7. 90 as also the consequential orders due to which the petitioner could not have been given retiral benefit after his superannuation on 5. 7. 90.
(2.) THE only controversy that arises in this petition is whether the petitioner's date of birth was correctly recorded in the service book as 12th November 1940 or his date of birth was 15th June 1931. The petitioner while challenging the order of his retirement had contended that the petitioner's date of birth in the service book having been recorded as 12. 11. 40, the same could not have been changed to the year 1931 after he had already discharged 41 years of duty. On the aforesaid averment the respondents were called upon to explain the position in response to which Mr. Saugath Rai submitted that if the petitioner's date of birth was taken to be 1940 has age would have been only 9 years at the time of his entry into the service and the same was clearly impermissible as 13 years was the minimum age for entry into the service. It was still further explained the when the dispute, about the petitioner's correct date of birth, was raised, the petitioner was directed to produce his Matriculation certificate in view of Rule 2 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (known as Technical Workman Service Regulation) as contained in Annexure-7 which lays down as follows:- 2. Age for the purpose of these Regulations, shall be computed from the date of birth, as given in the Higher Secondary, Matriculation and/or other School Leaving Certificates. Other evidence in proof of age shall be considered only if the appointing authority is satisfied that in the particular circumstance Higher Secondary, Matriculation and/or School leaving Certificate would not be available. 3. If the year of birth of an employee is known but not the exact month and date, 1st July of the year should be treated as the date of birth for the purpose of this Regulation. If the year and month of the birth of an employee are known but not the exact, date, the 16th of the month will be taken as the date of his birth for the purpose of these Regulations. This rule had to be framed in order to stream line the date of birth of persons whose date of birth at the time of entry into the service could not be ascertained correctly. It was stated that the petitioner came up with the plea that his date of birth should be relied upon as recorded in the service book and he was directed vide letter dated 8. 5. 90 to produce his Matriculation certificate indicating his date of birth but the petitioner replied to the same by submitting that a fire broke out in his house in which all his certificates had been burnt and he was not in a position to produce his Matriculation certificate. The respondents-authorities therefore decided his case in view of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules by recording his date of birth which would have been the minimum age of 18 years at the time of entry into the service. The respondents took the view that if the petitioner's date of birth is taken to be 1940 he would have been only 9 years of age at the time of his entry into the service and that was totally unacceptable to the respondents. The petitioner's advocate vehemently argued that other persons were allowed to continue in service even though their date of birth also led to the inference that their are at the time of entry into the service would have been 9 years. However, there is absolutely no material before this Court to enter into a scrutiny of the facts in other cases and hence that cannot form the basis for granting any relief to the petitioner by treating it as a case of discrimination. The fact that the petitioner failed to produce his matriculation certificate in support of his plea that his date of birth was 1940, no fault can be found with the action of the respondent - RSEB in taking the petitioner's date of birth as 1931. Besides this, the petitioner already acquiesces with the order of his superannuation by accepting all the retiral benefits and has filed a writ petition challenging his date of birth after the matter was completely set at naught. But, even if this fact is ignored, it remains that the petitioner has not been able to prove by cogent evidence that his date of birth at the time of entry into the service was correctly recorded as 1940 and not 1931 and therefore if the respondent-RSEB took his date of birth as 1931 on the basis of which he would have been 18 years of age at the time of entry into the service, it is difficult to detect any error in this action. It is well settled that whenever thee is a dispute about the age of an employee who is matriculate or higher secondary his date of birth recorded in the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary has to be treated as a conclusive proof of his age. This being the position, the petitioner had rightly been retired from service by taking his date of birth as 15th June 1931. The writ petition thus has not merit and hence it stands dismissed. .;