- (1.) THE instant review application has been filed by the petitioner for a modification in the order dated 26.05.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5734 of 2008.
(2.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner would explain by reference to the statements contained in paragraph 5 of the judgement that in the aforesaid paragraph, this Court, with reference to the entry of the petitioner's date of birth in the service records of the deceased father, has observed thus : - "Neither the genuineness of the document nor the entries therein has been denied or disputed by the petitioner . Learned counsel explains that the aforesaid observation appears to be an error of record in view of the fact that at paragraph 10 of the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the petitioner had raised a dispute regarding the genuineness of the aforesaid entry. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had pointed out that there was some over writing in the entry regarding the age of the petitioner.
(3.) FROM the perusal of paragraph 10 of the rejoinder to the counter affidavit it does appear that with reference to Annexure -H to the counter affidavit of the respondents, the petitioner has stated the following : - "there apparently appears to be over writing in the age of the petitioner . Merely by indicating some over writing, the petitioner did not categorically declare that he had denied or disputed the entry as appearing in the records even after the purported over writings. This Court had therefore taken the view that notwithstanding the over writings, the entry of the date of birth, as it appeared in the service records of the deceased employee, has not been disputed or denied by the petitioner and taking such view, had proceeded to record its findings in the judgement. ;