N.K. Jain, J. - (1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to restrain the respondents from effecting retirement of the petitioner before 30th June, 1995. It has also been prayed that if for any reason retirement of the petitioner is effected then the respondents be directed to take back the petitioner in service and allow him to remain in service till 30.6.1995 and direct the respondents to give the petitioner all consequential benefits.
(2.) The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Secretary, Municipal Board, Balotra on 29.1.1957. Thereafter, he was transferred to Municipal Board, Merta, where the service book of the petitioner was prepared and in the service book his date of birth came to be entered as 12.6.37 on the basis of birth certificate given to him by the then City Magistrate, Jodhpur. The petitioner was informed vide order dated 6.1.1993 (Annex. 2) that on attaining the age of superannuation he will be retiring from service on 30.6.93. It is alleged that the petitioner made representation against the letter dated 6.1.93 and on 14.6.93 he has preferred this writpetition under Article 226.
(3.) This Court issued notice to show cause and in pursuance of which the respondents appeared and filed reply. The respondent No. 1 State in its reply has stated that the petitioner has already been retired from the service w.e.f. 30.6.93, the petitioner never raised any objection regarding his date of birth till 15.6.93 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. Reply to the writ petition has also been filed by the respondent no. 2 stating that the petitioner was rightly superannuated in accordance with the date of birth. It has been further stated that it is a disputed question of fact that cannot be decided in the writ petition and further the conduct of the petitioner itself disentitle him to obtain any relief from this Court and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. A rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner, on 30.9.93 raising the point of R. 8(2) of the R.S.R.;