Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the notice of superannuation dated 21.08.2010, whereby he was intimated that he would superannuate from service in the fore-noon of 31.01.2011.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice would be to record that the petitioner was appointed on 01.04.1969 as Work-Sarkar. He claims that his correct date of birth is 02.01.1952. He has based his claim on the Matriculation certificate of the year 1969. In various documents of the employer including, a confidential report prepared on 31.10.1988 his date of birth is recorded as 02.01.1952. This document (vide Annexure-8) also records his educational qualification as Matriculation. On the ground that the Service Roll of the petitioner reflected over-writing in his date of birth, a notice was issued to him on 01.03.2001, requiring him to produce his educational certificate. The petitioner by letter dated 13.06.2002 (vide Annexure-6) produced his Matriculation certificate and other documentary evidence. His reply would disclose that he had revealed that in his earlier attempt in the year 1968, he could not pass the Matriculation examination. He has asserted that in the aforesaid record of the Matriculation examination also his date of birth is recorded as 02.01.1952. The Matriculation certificate also reflects his date of birth as 02.01.1952. The specific assertions of the petitioner in the writ-petition have not been traversed by the respondents. The documents produced by the petitioner were not doubted by the respondents. In the present proceeding also, genuineness of the Admission Card, Matriculation certificate, School Leaving certificate etc. has not been challenged by the respondents. Reply of the petitioner to the notice dated 01.03.2001 was never responded by the respondents during the currency of his service, and in the aforesaid facts the petitioner rightly assumed that his date of birth as reflected in the Matriculation certificate and initially recorded in his Service Roll (02.01.1952) has been accepted by the respondents. Interestingly, in the counter-affidavit, the respondents have pleaded that by letter dated 26.02.2011 his reply dated 13.06.2002 has been rejected; the petitioner was served a superannuation notice dated 21.08.2010 and he was made to retire on 31.01.2011. Obviously, this is an attempt by the respondents to justify their illegal action of unilateral change in the date of birth of the petitioner.
(3.) The stand taken by the respondents is that on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the G.P.F Form the petitioner's date of birth has been corrected as 02.01.1951. The documents relied upon by the respondents are neither statutory nor would bind the petitioner. In the context of a notice which was issued in the year 2001, the respondents cannot rely upon an application (GPF) submitted by the petitioner in the year 2004. Other documents are all respondents' documents, created unilaterally, which are contradicted by their own confidential report. Before making correction in his Service Roll, the petitioner was not communicated a reason why his date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate is not accepted by the employer. Neither the genuineness of the Matriculation certificate nor any other document produced by the petitioner has been disputed by the respondents. The confidential report prepared by the employer itself records that the petitioner is a Matriculate; his date of appointment is 01.04.1969 and his date of birth is 02.01.1952. Evidently, in the aforesaid facts it cannot be inferred that the petitioner has raised a dispute in respect of his date of birth at the fag end of his service. It was the employer which unilaterally changed his date of birth without communicating a reason why the Matriculation certificate and other documents produced by the petitioner cannot be accepted as a conclusive proof of his date of birth. In fact, it was the said date recorded in the Matriculation certificate, which was initially recorded in the Service Roll of the petitioner, and on a doubt raised on account of an over-writing, a notice was issued to him on 01.03.2001, that is, about 32 years of his service. In the context of the letter dated 28.12.1959 it needs to be recorded that the Government's decision is that when an employee raises a dispute in respect of date of birth, it can be corrected only if it was raised within ten years of employment. In the present case, it was the employer which raised a dispute 32 years after the appointment in respect of the date of birth of the petitioner, and therefore, reliance on letter dated 28.12.1959 does not sanctify the unilateral decision of the employer to change the date of birth of the petitioner, without communicating a reason to him (which, in fact, has allegedly done after the petitioner was made to retire).;