- (1.) THE petitioner was appointed in the establishment of the respondent BCCL in the year 1974. At the time of his appointment, his service record was opened wherein his date of birth was recorded as 27.12.1957 and the same date of birth was entered in Form -B Register, Service Excerpt and NEIS Form. As per the aforesaid entry, the petitioner is expected to superannuate in December 2017.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he was unexpectedly served with the notice dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure -9) intimating that he would attain the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 30.11.2008, as per the entry recorded in respect of his date of birth in his service records. Petitioners claim in this writ application is for quashing the aforesaid notice (Annexure9) and also for directing the respondents to correct the entry regarding his date of birth and record the same as 27.12.1957 instead of 25.11.1948 and allow the petitioner to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years as counted from 27.12.1957. Counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent BCCL, wherein grounds advanced by the petitioner, has been denied and disputed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent BCCL.
(3.) SRI A.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on 27.12.1974 as a time rated worker. Subsequently, a new Form -B Register was prepared by the BCCL in which his date of birth was recorded as 27.12.1957. Learned counsel submits that after having accepted this entry as the correct entry of the petitioners date of birth, and continuing with the same for more than 25 years, the respondents are now wanting to change the entry by referring the petitioners case to the Date of Birth Committee (DOBC). Such action on the part of the respondents, according to the learned counsel, is totally arbitrary and illegal since the petitioner was neither served with any notice, nor was he informed that the respondents had contemplated to change the entry regarding his date of birth in his service records. Learned counsel adds further that by obtaining a misleading report from the DOB Committee, that too behind the back of the petitioner, the respondents have now arbitrarily and illegally proceeded to change the date of birth of the petitioner after more than 25 years.;