PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) PETITIONER joined Indian Army as Sepoy on 15th February, 1957 and retired on 14th May, 1972, after serving fifteen years in Army. Petitioner, thereafter, came to be reengaged in Defence Security Corps on account of his physical fitness on 15th February, 1977 and after serving almost sixteen and half years on this post he was superannuated in June, on attaining the age of 55 years. This superannuation was on the basis his date of birth, as recorded in the - original service records as 1.7.1938. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has been wrongly retired in the year, 1993 and his pension has also not been fixed taking into consideration the services, rendered by him as Sepoy before his fresh engagement. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 15th February, 1939. He has, accordingly, claimed his pension on the basis of 5th Pay Commission, which admittedly came into effect after his retirement.
(2.) THE Union of India has filed a detailed counter affidavit, admitting that the petitioner has rendered services in two spells; firstly from 15th February, 1957 to 14th May, 1972 and thereafter from 15th February, 1977 till June, 1993. After his engagement in 1977 he was promoted as Acting Naik with effect from 19th February, 1992 and his former service pension was suspended with effect from 15th February, 1977 i.e. from the date of re -enrolment in Defence Security Crops in terms of Rule 267(d) of the Pension Regulations for the Army Part I (1961). Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India This was in view of the fact that the petitioner opted to count his former service towards the enhanced rate of pension and gratuity with service in Defence Security Crops vide answer to question No. II in the enrolment form, filled up by him. He had also elected to cease to draw pension on account of former service towards enhanced rate of pension and gratuity in terms of Government of India, Ministry of defence Letter No. PC III to MF No. 00592/DSC -2/54 -C/D (GS -IV) dated 3rd March, 1983. Option certificate duly signed by the petitioner on 29th August, 1983 has been relied upon. As far the dispute of date of birth is concerned, it is mentioned that when the petitioner was initially engaged, he had mentioned his date of birth as 1st July, 1938 and later when he was reengaged he wrongly mentioned his date of birth as 1st April, 1940, which did not match with the initial date of birth, recorded in the first enrolment form. Petitioner was apprised of this and his consent was also obtained on 17th November, 1992 regarding the correction of the date of birth and he has been retired accordingly. It is also stated that the petitioner's revised pension has been fixed from 1st January, 1996 on the basis of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission.
(3.) IN view of the fact that the petitioner has accepted his date of birth, as initially recorded, the plea of the petitioner for premature retirement on the basis of date of birth, recorded in the service book, cannot be accepted. There is no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.;