S.N. Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the superannuation notice as contained in Memo No. 435 dated 9.10.2013 issued by the respondents, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been forced to superannuate prematurely w.e.f. 1.4.2014 while taking into consideration the date of birth of the petitioner as 5.3.1954 and ignoring the correct date of birth of the petitioner as 5.3.1958.
(2.) Further prayer has been made to continue the services of the petitioner till he attains the age of superannuation as per the date of birth recorded in his matriculation certificate. Further prayer has been made for payment of salary with all consequential benefit from 1.4.2014 to till he resumes the duty since the petitioner is kept out of service due to fault and laches on the part of the respondents.
(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as a Dozer Operator in the services of the respondents-M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (for short "BCCL") on 11.3.1982. It is the case of the petitioner that in his application form for the above post, he had explicitly declared his date of birth as 5.3.1958 as per his matriculation certificate and in support of that, he has also produced the copy of his matriculation certificate. As per condition laid down in para-1 of Annexure-3, he was asked to submit his matriculation certificate in support of his date of birth, which he had duly submitted. Thereafter, when the Respondent Project Officer wished on his birthday, he came to know that in the records, his date of birth is 5.3.1954 instead of 5.3.1958. The petitioner then reported to the Respondent Project Officer vide letter dated 16.5.2010 for correction of the same on the basis of his matriculation certificate. Thereafter, by seeing the genuine grievance of the petitioner, the respondents itself has forwarded the dispute regarding the date of birth of the petitioner for assessment before the Headquarters' along with the check list on 16.5.2010. Despite the glaring and apparent wrong committed by the Respondent Authorities in relation to the date of birth, the respondents sat tight over the matter in spite of the fact that the petitioner continued to represent before the Respondent Authorities vide letters dated 16.4.2011 and 6.5.2012. On 5.10.2012, the respondent wrote to the Deputy Registrar of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga University for verification of the testimonials and date of the birth of the petitioner which was verified and found to be as mentioned in the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner i.e. 5.3.1958. But, surprisingly, vide letter dated 9.10.2013, the Respondent Project Director issued superannuation notice to the petitioner by treating his date of birth as 5.3.1954 even after several verification as well as in violation of Implementation Instruction 76. The respondents even verified the status of Madhyama Degree awarded by the aforesaid University and vide letter dated 19.11.2013, the Controller of Examination of the University has affirmed that the aforesaid University is approved by the University Grants Commission. Even after several verifications, the petitioner was forced to retire w.e.f. 1.4.2014 which is much prior of his actual age of superannuation i.e. 1.4.2018. On 16.4.2014 the petitioner filed representation requesting the respondent Authorities to correct his date of birth and allow him to remain in service till 1.4.2018 but no needful was done. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for redressal of his grievances.;