- (1.) PETITIONER in this writ application has prayed for quashing the letters dated 18.07.2006 and 31.08.2006 (Annexures -6 and 6/1) issued by the Respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner was intimated about the date of his superannuation as on 31.12.2006. Further prayer has been made for an order to restrain the respondents from implementing the aforesaid impugned letters and also for a direction to the respondents to rectify the date of superannuation as per his date of birth recorded in his Matriculation Certificate and other documents.
(2.) RELYING basically on the work standing orders of the respondent Company and the Rules regarding determining the date of birth of the employees under it, as also relying upon the date of birth as recorded in his Matriculation Certificate, the petitioner has challenged the impugned letters as totally illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioners case in brief is that he had joined the service under the respondent Company on 18.12.1971 on the post of Rigger. Prior to his joining service, he had already passed the Matriculation Board Examination in the year 1968. His contention is that at the time of his appointment, he had faced an interview and he had stated his date of birth as entered in his Matriculation Certificate. Since the Matriculation Certificate was not demanded from him, he did not submit any copy thereof. Later, by a general circular, the respondent Company had given an opportunity to all its employees for submitting their respective applications for making entries in respect of their educational qualifications in their service records. In response, the petitioner had also submitted his application seeking entry of his qualification of Matriculation in his service records. The certificate was duly accepted though with a warning given to him to be cautious in future and a letter in this regard was issued to him on 15.01.1980 (Annexure -2) in confirmation of the fact that his qualification of Matriculation has been duly entered in his service records. The petitioners further contention is that after accepting the Matriculation Certificate and making necessary entries in his service records, the concerned authorities of the respondent Company had also made the correction in the entry regarding his date of birth in his service records. This was confirmed to the petitioner by a statement of account (Annexure -3) served upon the petitioner in which not only his date of birth, as appearing in his Matriculation Certificate, was recorded but the date of superannuation on his attaining the age of 58 years as on 03.05.2008, was communicated to him. Subsequently, by a general decision, the age of retirement was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in respect of the employees of the respondent Company. Accordingly the petitioner was to superannuate on 03.05.2010. The petitioners further contention is that in his medical book, which was renewed from time to time, up to 31.12.2006, his date of birth has been correctly recorded as 03.05.1950 as per his Matriculation Certificate. It was much later that he had received reliable information that some interpolations and manipulations were carried out in his service records regarding his actual date of birth. He filed a representation on 18.05.2005 (Annexure -5) before the concerned authorities of the respondents for maintaining his correct date of birth in his service records. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of correcting the date of birth in his service records, the respondent authorities had issued the impugned letters by which he was forced to superannuate on 31.12.2006 although, according to his date of birth as per his Matriculation Certificate, he would superannuate on 31.12.2010.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.;