N.L. Tibrewal, J. - (1.) The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is about nonpayment of salary for the period from 1.10.88 to 30.11.90. In order to appreciate the claim of the petitioner, necessary facts may be stated in brief :
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee w.e.f. September 11, 1953 and was confirmed on the said post on 13.8.55. He was holding substantive post in Ayurvedic Department till the date of his retirement. The petitioner was retired w.e.f. 30.9.88 vide order dated 22.9.88 (Annex. 1) treating his date of birth as September 10, 1928. The petitioner was aggrieved from his date of retirement as he was claiming his date of birth as November 16, 1930, which is said to be entered in the service record. Subsequently, the petitioner made representations from time to time to the concerned authorities including the Director, Ayurvedic Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur : Having failed to get a favourable order, he approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution after serving a notice for demand of justice to the concerned authorities. The writ petition was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3085/92. The petition was disposed of on May 8, 1992 with a direction to the Director, Ayurvedic Department to pass appropriate order within a period of 30 days from the date of submission of copy of the order on the basis of the letter dated 24th October, 1990 by the Dy. Director, Ayurvedic Department. It appears that inspite of the order, the Director did not pass any order and the petitioner had to again approach this Court by moving a Contempt Petition. At this stage, realising the consequences in the Contempt Petition, the Director passed the impugned order on 13.10.1992 whereby he agreed that the date of birth of the petitioner was 16.11.1993 (sic) and on that basis, his date of retirement ought to have been 16.11.1930 (sic) and he should have been retired from 30.11.1990 instead of 30.9.88, treating the date of birth as 10.9.1928. However, by the said order the petitioner was not awarded salary for the period 1.10.88 to 30.11.90 on the ground that no work was taken from the petitioner during the said period. The petitioner was given all other consequential benefits treating his date of retirement as 30.11.90 for the purpose of gratuity and pension etc. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no justification to deprive the petitioner of his salary for the aforesaid period as it was the fault of the concerned officer who made premature retirement without taking into consideration the date of birth as per service record.
(3.) The defence taken in the reply by respondents No.1 and 2 is to the effect that the Service Book of the petitioner was not available and he was retired on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner himself on 5.9.88 in which he gave the date of birth as September 10, 1928 and expressed his desire that he be retired. This fact has been denied by the respondents (sic) in the rejoinder stating therein that the said letter has been prepared subsequently to create a defence as his signatures were taken on blank paper on the pretext of non-availability of Service Book for the purpose of making his fixation of salary.;