Alok Singh, J. - (1.) PERUSAL of Annexure no. 1 reveals that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 03.03.1954. Annexure no. 2, identity card, issued to the petitioner also contains 03.03.1954 as his date of birth. Annexure no. 4 reveals that date of birth of the petitioner was accepted as 03.03.1954 as per initial Form -B Register. However, vide Annexure no. 5 dated 11/12.08.2009, order dated 31.3.2005 Annexure no. 4, was directed to be kept in abeyance till further orders. The petitioner was made to retire on 31.03.2009, treating the date of the petitioner as 30.03.1949, on attaining the age of 60 years, the date of superannuation. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court with the allegation that if Form -B Register and other service excerpt including identity card the date of birth of the petitioner is 03.03.1954, the petitioner should have been allowed to work till he attains the age of 60 years. There is no material available on record to show as to why order dated 31.03.2009, Annexure no. 4 was directed to be kept in abeyance vide Annexure no. 5.
(2.) THE Management initially decided to treat the date of birth of the petitioner as 03.03.1954 vide Annexure no. 4. However, same was not implemented for the reasons best known to Management. In the opinion of this Court, the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in Form -B Register and other service records should be treated as correct unless bonafide dispute arises to refer the case to the Medical Board. There is nothing on the record to suggest that ever dispute arose about the correctness of the date of birth of the petitioner i.e. 03.03.1954. Therefore, present petition is allowed, Annexure no. 7 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and allow him to work till he attains the age of superannuation treating his date of birth as 03.03.1954. The petitioner shall also be paid 75% salary for the period he was not allowed to work for no fault on his part.;