- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the time of entering into service, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in Form B as 24.10.1959.The same date of birth was recorded in other documents too but when NEIS record was prepared,date of birth was recorded as 24.10.1950 in the said record. When the petitioner came to know that the authority is proposing to act upon that, the petitioner moved to this Court for necessary direction to the authority not to act upon the date of birth recorded in NEIS record but before the case was taken up, the petitioner was made to retire on 31.10.2010 taking the date of birth of the petitioner as 24.10.1950 and, therefore, the order dated 17/26.6.2010 ( Annexure 3) by which the petitioner was made to retire on 30.10.2010 has been sought to be quashed.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the B.C.C.L it is evidently clear that the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded in Form B register and other documents as 24.10.1959 which date of birth without there being any basis has been changed to 24.10.1950 which was acted upon, as a result of which, the petitioner was made to retire on 31.10.2010. Since there was no basis for recording the date of birth as 24.10.1950, the said letter as contained in Annexure 3 under which the petitioner was made to retire on 31.10.2010 is hereby quashed.Accordingly, the authority is directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties till he attains 60 years taking date of birth of the petitioner as 24.10.1959.
(3.) Needless to say that the petitioner would be entitled to salary for the period during which the petitioner, due to fault of the respondent,was kept out of job. Accordingly, this application is allowed.;