ALOK SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS Court has passed following order as under: - Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on Annexure - 9 to the writ petition, contends that in the record age of the petitioner which was initially written as 27 years, has been made as 29 years by overwriting. He further contends that on perusal of the original of Annexure - 1, this Court can find that 29 in words is written in the different ink and in the different handwriting. It has further been contended that manipulation in the record was done with ulterior motive to cause undue harm to the petitioner. He has further argued that even Medical Board, at the time of initial appointment, has opined that petitioner was 27 years of age, as mentioned in Annexure - 1/A to the writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents shall place on record original of Annexure - 1 to the writ petition. Meanwhile, Respondent No. 2 - the Executive Director (P & A), Bokaro Steel Plant, shall file his personal affidavit to the effect as to whether 29, by overwriting, was made in different ink and 29 in words has been written in the different ink. He shall also enquire in the matter as to how manipulation in the record was done. Let affidavit be filed within two weeks positively. List thereafter. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has produced the original record for the perusal of this Court. Perusal of the record would reveal that in the age column, 27 is made 29 by overwriting in a different ink. In some of the documents, age of the petitioner is shown as 22 years while in other documents, age is shown as 27 years, which is latter on converted to 29 years. Medical Board, at the time of initial appointment, has recorded age of the petitioner as 27 years. If age of the petitioner is taken as 27 years on the date of initial appointment, he would have retired in the year 2006, however, he was made to retire on 30.06.2004, treating him 29 years at the time of initial appointment. Petitioner has received total retiral benefits, as is evident from the original record produced before me.
(3.) SINCE initially, age of the petitioner is recorded as 27 years, which was latter on made 29 years by overwriting in a different ink, therefore, considering the opinion of the Medical Board, as shown in Annexure - 1/A, age of the petitioner should be treated as 27 years on the date of initial appointment. Therefore, petitioner was wrongly made to retire on 30.06.2004, while he should have been allowed to work till 30.06.2006 A.N.;