- (1.) THIS L.P.A. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.09.08 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the writ petition was allowed and the order of superannuation of the writ petitioner was quashed.
(2.) THE dispute in this case is about the date of birth of the writ petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, who is respondent No. 1 in this L.P.A., his date of birth was 02.08.1950. According to the case of the appellant -employer, the date of birth was 02.08.1946. The service book of the appellant contains interpolations in the date of birth which are visible to a naked eye. A photo copy of the relevant page of the service book has been annexed as Annexure -3 to this appeal. The original has been produced before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant -employers. That the interpolations detailed below, have made in a different ink and different handwriting is undisputed. Although the original writing has been faded out but the faint impression in the original service -book suggests that the figures in the date of birth have been altered in respect of the last two digits of the year, from 2.8.1946 to 2.8.1950. The date of birth is also recorded in words after the figures. While the words "second August nineteen" are in one handwriting, the letters of the word "fifty" have been altered in respect of the second and third alphabet in a different ink and in a different handwriting and the closing bracket after the word "fifty" is also in a different ink. it has been argued that the original alphabets were "f o r t y", which have been altered to "f i f t y". It has also been argued that after the word "forty", "six" was also written which has been made so faint as to be not easily seen. It is obvious from the photo copy as well as the original that there was a word after the word "fifty" and there was also a closing bracket thereafter which has been obliterated.
(3.) FURTHER in the service book there is a medical certificate dated 3.2.1970 photocopy of which is filed with the appeal and original of which was seen by us in the service book produced. In the said certificate it has been mentioned that appellant's age according to his own statement was 20 years and by appearance also he was about twenty years of age. The age is mentioned therein both in figures and words. It is obvious to the naked eye that the digit "0" in "20" has been overwritten in a different ink and a word after the word "twenty" has been obliterated in the said medical certificate. It has been argued from the appellant's side that the age in the medical certificate was originally mentioned as "24" and "twenty four" which has been changed.;