- (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.
(2.) It appears that by mentioning wrong date of birth, the petitioner continued in service beyond the date on which he should have superannuated. The correct date of birth of the petitioner, as claimed by the Department, is 26.5.1941. However, the petitioner claims that he continued to serve till December, 2003. According to the Department he relieved in 1999.
(3.) It has been mentioned in the order under review that the petitioner has not challenged that date of birth is not 26.5.1941and even before me, there is no material for challenging that date of birth. Accordingly, the date of birth of the petitioner must be taken to be 26.5.1941 and on that basis his retirement benefits whatever are due must be computed because it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed and has served. The period after the date of actual superannuation must be ignored for computing the retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that there is dispute about the actual date of superannuation. According to the Department, writ petitioner superannuated in the year 1999. Whether he actually superannuated in 1999 or later would be known by several factors including the following two factors. The first factor is on what basis he was superannuated in 1999, and more importantly the second factor up till what date his salary was paid. Because of payment of salary is a financial transaction, it should be recorded in the Government papers and is not capable of manipulation. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought salary from May, 2003 up-to December, 2003 which prima-facie suggests that the petitioner was paid his salary up-till April, 2003.;