Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 30.9.2010, whereby the petitioner has been forced to retire prematurely w.e.f. 31.3.2011. It has been stated that the petitioner is a Matriculate and his date of birth as per the Matriculation certificate dated 1.9.1967 is 26.4.1953. The petitioner was appointed in the service of the respondents on 18.9.1971. The petitioner had, thus, passed the Matriculation Examination before his appointment. The petitioner was all along under impression that the correct date of birth must have been entered in his service record. But suddenly he received a notice dated 30.9.2010, issued by the respondents, informing the petitioner that according to service record he would retire, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.3.2011. This was a surprise to the petitioner, as his date of birth is clearly recorded as 26.4.1953 in the Matriculation certificate and he was to retire on 31.3.2013. But the petitioner was forced to retire prematurely on 31.3.2011. The petitioner protested against the said notice based on wrong entry in the service book and made prayer for correction of the entry of his date of birth in accordance with the Matriculation certificate, but the same was not heeded upon by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case of Kamta Pandey v. M/S. B.C.C.L. : 2007 (3) JLJR 726 : 2008 (2) AIR Jhar. R 94, a Full Bench of this Court has held that the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate, issued by the recognized Education Board and obtained by an employee before his employment, is the conclusive proof of his date of birth.
(2.) IN view of the said judgment, the petitioner is entitled for correction of the entry in the service record according to the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate and also for other appropriate order. But in spite of repeated representations, no order has been passed by the respondents till date. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was forced to retire w.e.f. 31.2.2011. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that if the petitioner's representation is still pending, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed. Considering the said submissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Sr. Manager (P & A), IISCO Steel Plant, SAIL, Chasnala Colliery, Dhanbad (respondent No. 2) to consider the petitioner's representation and take final decision within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. After taking decision, the said respondent shall also issue the consequential order, as may be required in view of the decision of the said respondent.;