Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 02.08.2007 vide Annexure-3 and letter dated 19.09.2007 vide Annexure-4, whereby the date of birth has been corrected and changed as per the CMPF record from 20.04.1952 to 01.02.1948 and the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service under respondent authority according to the date of birth dated 20.04.1952.
(2.) The brief facts, leading to filing of the writ application, is that petitioner was appointed on 05.04.1973 and thereafter service book of the petitioner was opened wherein the date of birth stood recorded as 20.04.1952. In the said service excerpts, petitioner's thumb impression finds place so also the signature of the competent authority. When the petitioner was orally communicated about impending date of retirement on 30.01.2008, the petitioner immediately submitted representation on 21.08.2007 putting forth his grievance vide Annexure-2 to the writ application. While the representation was pending for consideration, the Senior Personnel Officer, Topa Colliery informed the petitioner that one task force committee has verified the date of birth and got its corrected as per the C.M.P.F record and accordingly, the date of birth of the petitioner has been changed from 20.04.1952 to 01.02.1948 which is evident from letter dated 02.08.2007 as per Annexure-3. Thereafter, the petitioner has been served with notice dated 19.09.2007 about his superannuation on 31.01.2008 considering his date of birth as 01.02.1948 as evident from Annexure-4 to the writ application. It has been averred in the writ application that the respondents on their own have made cutting, the original date of birth of the petitioner in the service excerpts and has changed the same as 01.02.1948 which is quite apparent from Annexure-5 and that too the change of the date of birth has been made without notice and unilateral change has been made at the fag end of the service of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed detailed representation vide Annexure-6 to the writ application, which did not evoke any response from the respondent authorities. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned orders vide Annexures-3 and 4, the petitioner left with no alternative, have knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned orders vide Annexures-3 and 4 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the date of birth recorded in the service excerpts, which is the authentic document, the petitioner was supposed to continue in service till 30.04.2012 but the respondents by their unilateral action have changed the date of birth at the fag end of the service career without issuing any notice to the petitioner, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.;