- (1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petitions has sought following relief/s: - "It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed: A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 1.7.2007 (Annexure -3) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.10.1968 as shown in the service record. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained from taking into account the medical record for changing the date of birth for official record."
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Nakhtu Ram V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. - SBCWP No.660/2011 decided on 15.1.2014, in which this Court held as under: "1. The petitioners were appointed as Work Charge Employee by the respondent - Forest Department under the Work Charge Employees Rules, 1964 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1964') in the year 1991 -92 vide the appointment order Annex.P/3. After about 10 -12 years for no disclosed reasons, the respondent Forest Department constituted a Medical Board for determining the correct age/date of birth of the petitioners, since at the time of entry in the services as Work Charge Employee, their date of birth was taken as per affidavit furnished by them. 2. The Medical opinion given vide Annex.P/4 only discloses the approximate age of the petitioners. A notice dated 03.07.2002 (Annex.P/5) came to be issued to the petitioner by the respondent - Forest Department that their date of birth as per Medical Board is 06.01.1951 (Petitioner - Nakthu Ram S/o Kesara Ram in SBCWP No.660/2011) and unless he establishes his correct date of birth as per affidavit already given by him, he will not only be retired as per the date of Birth determined by the Medical Board but also a case for criminal proceedings will be filed against the petitioner/s. Such notices given in the year 2002, did not yield anything from the petitioner/s and accordingly vide order Annex.R/1 dated 23.11.2010, the petitioners were directed to be retired from the forthcoming date i.e. 31.01.2011. The petitioners have challenged this office order seeking to retire the petitioners prematurely and illegally from the services, who had already acquired the status of semi -permanent and permanent status under the Rules of 1964.
(3.) MR . H.S. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions, is squarely covered by a decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Bheera Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SBCWP No.3746/2006 decided on 06.10.2006) in which, against the same respondent - Forest Department for similarly situated employee (Beldar), who was appointed on 01.04.1985 under the similar circumstances, when the Medical Board sought to determine the age of the employee, this Court quashed the said office order prematurely retiring the petitioner/incumbent and allowed the writ petition with cost of Rs.5,000/ - against the Forest Department.;