APARESH KUMAR SINGH - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. According to the petitioner, he was prematurely retired w.e.f. 30.11.2002 vide memo No. RIT/E -1609/2002 dated 9.7.2002. Petitioner has also sought for quashing of the office order dated 8.11.2002 and relieving order dated 30.11.2002.
(2.) He has also sought for quashing of pension payment order dated 5.3.2003, whereby pension is allowed to be paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.12.2002 instead of his actual claimed date of superannuation i.e. 31.12.2003. According to the petitioner he was appointed on the post of mechanic under R.I.T., Jamshedpur on temporary basis vide order dated 21.12.1978 (Annexure -1). At the time of appointment he submitted his original School Leaving Certificate (S.L.C.) as proof of his date of birth being 1.1.1944. Thereafter, he was confirmed w.e.f. 21.12.1980 vide Annexure -2 dated 12.5.1981 issued by the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that he was asked to retire by the impugned letter dated 9.7.2002 w.e.f. 30.11.2002, more than 1 year prior to his actual date of retirement i.e. 31.12.2003 vide Annexue -4. Petitioner was thereafter relieved from his duties. Petitioner has produced the duplicate copy of the S.L.C. as Annexure -6 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, Utter Pradesh vide his reference No. 1 dated 2.2.2003 showing his date of birth as 1.1.1944. Orders of relieving is annexure -7 and 8 and petitioner being aggrieved made representation for reconsideration which has not been responded. In the meantime pension payment order has been issued vide Annexure -9 and 9/A dated 5.3.2003.
(3.) THE ground for assailing the impugned order are that the respondents have failed to take into account the correct date of birth being 1.1.1944 reflected in the S.L.C. at the time of entering into service and further by way of supplementary affidavit excerpts of service books has been brought on record, which shows 2 date of birth 1.1.1944, furnished by the petitioner and 28.11.1942, which is as per the medical certificate given by the medical Board constituted by the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & others Vrs. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad reported in : 2009 (3) SCC 117 and submitted that in case there are 2 entries of date of birth in the service record, respondents ought to delete one of it to correct the entry, which has not been done in this case and benefit should be given to the employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan Vrs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & others reported in : 2009 (1) SCC 80 to submit that on detection of mistake in the date of birth the respondent - employee should have taken steps to correct the same and in such circumstances Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the correction of date of birth in case of said petitioner - Md. Yunus Khan and directed the respondents to pay 50% back wages.;