SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) By the retirement-notice dated 09.06.2008, the petitioner was intimated that he would superannuate from service on 30.11.2008. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed in the service of Bokaro Steel Plant (B.S.P.) on 29.11.1973. He claims that at that time his age was 19 years. Referring to the Medical Report, LTC/LLTC form, PAN Card etc., he has pleaded that his actual date of birth is 06.07.1954. The respondent-B. S.P. has taken a stand that there was interpolation in his Personal Data Form and, in fact, his actual age was 25 years as on 29.11.1973, when he joined the service under the company.
(3.) In compliance of order dated 22.11.2016, original service record of the petitioner has been produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner was handed over the original record, for his perusal, in the Court. On careful scrutiny of the record pertaining to petitioner's service, I find that the petitioner along with 23 other persons were medically examined by the Medical Board on 24.11.1973. While age of other 23 candidates are computer typed, there is interpolation in the age of the petitioner, which is written '19' by hand. There is an interpolation also in the Personal Data Form of the petitioner. There appears to be interpolation in his date of birth. It appears that his original age mentioned therein was interpolated and written as 19 years old, which was subsequently corrected as 25 years as on 29.11.1973. No doubt, the petitioner has produced Matriculation certificate of the year 1980, however, it cannot be treated as a conclusive proof of his age for the purpose of his service under the company. A subsequent record which is prepared at his instance; date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate is on account of his own declaration, after he was inducted in the service of the company is not such an irrefutable evidence, on the basis of which dispute on his date of birth can be conclusively concluded. It is the petitioner who would be a beneficiary of interpolation in the Personal Data Form. The plea that the original Personal Data Form remained in the custody of the company and while so, it must be inferred that any interpolation to the disadvantage of the petitioner has been done at the instance of the company, is misconceived. There is no allegation of malafide against any individual officer whereas, in view of the plausible explanation offered by the respondent company, action of the company as reflected in retirement notice dated 09.06.2008 must be held proper.;