M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has challenged the Statement of Account of Superannuation Benefits Fund wherein petitioner 'sdate of superannuation has been mentioned as 22.8.2003 assuming the date of birth of the petitioner as 22.8.1943.
(2.) THE petitioner joined the service of the respondents on 22.08.1973. The date of birth of the petitioner, was recorded as 2.4.1951 (22 Years). Hence the date of superannuation was fixed as 22.08.2009. The petitioner was performing his job as crane operator. In all the papers maintained by the respondent -Management the date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 2.04.1951. In the Medical Book issued in favour of the petitioner and also in the LTC/LLTC the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 2.04.1951. All of a sudden the petitioner was shocked to find the Statement of Account of Superannuation Benefit wherein the date of superannuation has been mentioned as 22.08.2003 instead of 22.08.2009. When this case was taken up on 27.02.2004 Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel then appearing on behalf of the respondents was directed to produce the originals of the documents annexed with the counter -affidavit. Pursuant to that order, the originals have been produced by the learned counsel appearing today on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) I am fully conscious of the law that normally where there is dispute with regard to date of birth the appropriate remedy available to the party is the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. But, in the instant case, prima facie, it appears that some alteration or interpolation has been made by the employer in the date of birth of the employee maintained in the service records behind the back of the employee and therefore, this Court has full jurisdiction to undo the illegality done by the employer, it is the consistent case of the petitioner that at the time of his appointment in 1973 all required applications were filled up and the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 2.04.1951 but the same was alleged to have been changed by the respondents behind the back of the petitioner. I have perused the original service papers prepared by the respondents at the time of appointment and maintained by the Personnel Department of the respondents. In the said personal data form the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 2.04.1951 but interpolation was made by making the figure "22 years" as "28 years". The figure '22 years ' was subsequently made as '28 years ' in different ink. However, in the original records the date of birth in words is still written as '2.04.1951 '. Obviously it was done by the respondents because it cannot be presumed that such interpolation can be made by the employee against his own interest.;