N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. GM (PPR) Pars/Retirement/04/2916 -24, dated 22.9.2004 passed by the respondent No. 4 (the Staff Officer (P & A) Piparwar Area), whereby the petitioner has been sought to be retired with retrospective effect, alleging that he has reached the date of superannuation on 29.2.2000.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he was employed as a Senior Security Inspector (P/S No. 12120572) GM Officer, Piparwar, Piparwar Area. Initially he was appointed as general mozdoor on 2.1.1963 and since thereafter he has been successfully rendering his service. According to the petitioner, when he joined, his service book was opened. His date of birth was recorded as 6.7.1946 in the service book. According to the petitioner his date of retirement, on attaining the age of 60 years, is 31.7.2006 but without issuing any prior notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing, the impugned letter as contained in Annexure -6 dated 22.9.2004 was suddenly issued to him informing that he had already attained the age of 60 years on 29.2.2000 and thus shall be treated to have retired on superannuation with effect from 29.2.2000. He was also advised to submit an application for settlement of the claims of terminal benefits. The respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit supporting the said impugned letter on the ground that the petitioner 'sdate of birth was assessed and certified as 29 years as on 1.3.1969 by the medical board. It has been stated that the petitioner had thus attained the age of 60 years i.e. the age of superannuation on 29.2.2000.
(3.) IN view of the said controversy between the parties, this Court by order dated 30.3.2005 directed the respondents to produce the original statutory service record for perusal of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents produced the original service records including the minial service register before this Court, today. It is clearly evident from the said service record that the petitioner 'sdate of birth is recorded as 6.7.1946. The entry has made by the Colliery Manager, Sayal dated 6.5.1969. There is no entry regarding further determination of date of birth by any Medical Board. However, learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice a small slip which they termed as medical report in which it has been mentioned that according to his (petitioner 's) statement, his age 29 years and that also from appearance is 29 years. In the back side of the slip the petitioner 'ssignature appears without any date. Learned counsel for the respondents has justified the Annexure -5 on the basis of the said slip which is of the year 1969 without any date without bringing anything on record to prove its authenticity and propriety in face of clear contrary entry of date of birth in the original service record. The service record, with all necessary columns filled up in the year 1969, clearly mentions the petitioner 'sdate of birth as 6.7.1946. Subsequently, the Central Coal Fields Limited also informed about the entries of the service record to the petitioner in which also the date of birth has been recorded as 6.7.1946. The said document is issued by the Manager, and it bears the signature of the petitioner and the other evidences. There are also other records available to show that the petitioner 'sdate of birth is 6.7.1946 which supports the date of birth recorded in the service book.;