NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Letter No. 2100 dated 21st July, 2006 issued by the respondent No. 5 (Annexure -3), whereby she was informed and asked to retire with effect from 30th November, 2006 altering his date of birth to 4th November, 1946. Petitioners case is that at the time of appointment, her date of birth was recorded as 5th June, 1954. The said date was entered in the service book (Annexure -2). Suddenly, by the impugned letter, she was informed that she would retire on 30th November, 2006 on the basis of her date of birth 4th November, 1946. It has been stated that the petitioner was never given any notice or opportunity of hearing before altering her date of birth in the service record. It has been submitted that the impugned letter is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principle of natural justice and the some is liable to be quashed.
(2.) THE respondent -Jharkhand State Electricity Board contested the petitioners claim. It has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioner was earlier engaged on muster roll. In that record, she had given her age 35 years in 1981 and on the basis thereof, her date of birth comes to 4th November, 1946. The said entry is the basis for issuing the impugned letter dated 21st July, 2006. There is no arbitrariness and illegality in issuing the same. It has been stated that alteration of date of birth in the service record has already been communicated to the petitioner long back in the year 1994. The petitioner cannot raise the said grievance after lapse of long time at the fag end of service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said communication of alteration in the date of birth is false and unfounded. No notice or opportunity of hearing was ever given to her. There was clear entry of date of birth in the service record, as would be evident from the service book of the petitioner (Annexure -2). Her date of birth has been clearly mentioned as 5th June, 1954, both in figures and words. There was no confusion as such. If there was any occasion for alteration of the date of birth, the respondents should have given notice or opportunity of hearing. Alteration of date of birth behind the petitioners back is wholly illegal and unjust. The respondents have illegally reduced the service tenure of the petitioner by putting an arbitrary date without any basis, as also without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to her. The impugned order is, thus, violative of principle of natural justice and is nullity in law.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. On perusal of the service book of the petitioner (Annexure -2), I find that there is a clear entry of her date of birth as 5th June, 1954. The said fact has also not been denied and disputed by the respondents. However, the respondents have claimed that initially in muster roll, her age was mentioned, as 35 years as on 4th November, 1981, and on that basis her date of birth comes to 4th November, 1946. There is, thus, no illegality and arbitrariness in fixing her date of birth as 4th November, 1946.;