The above mentioned writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners against the order of superannuation by the respondents at the age of 58 years and also for non correction of the date of birth of the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1549 of 1992. As similar points have been involved for decision, both the writ petitions are taken together for disposal. 2. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1549 of 1992 was appointed as an Assistant temporarily with effect from 9.6.69 by the General Manager, Gauhati Bank Limited by the letter dated 26.6.69 (Annexure A to the writ petition) and subsequently promoted as Accountant Grade II with effect from 1.7.75 (Annexure B to the writ petition). The Gauhati Bank Limited was merged with the Purbanchal Bank Limited on and from 1.8.75 and that petitioner was absorbed in the Purbanchal Bank as Officer in the rank of Accountant in which post he continued till the Purbanchal Bank was merged with the respondent Central Bank of India by notification No. 17.7.89 B.O. Ill (i) dated 28.8.90 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Govt of India in pursuance of section 45 (7) of the tanking Regulation Act 1949 with effect from 29.8.90 (Annexure C to the writ petition). By the above mentioned notification the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 45 (7) of the Act sanctioned the scheme for amalgamation of the Purbanchal Bank Limited with the Central Bank of India. The contention of the petitioner is that under .clause 10 of the said scheme (Annexure D to the writ petition) all the employees of the transferor bank (the Purbanchal Bank Limited) shall continue in service and be(deemed to have been appointed by the transferee bank (the Central Bank of India) at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to such employees immediately before the close of business on 14.7.90. Under clause 11 the transferee bank shall before a period of 3 years from 28.8.90 grant to the employees of the transferor bank, the same terms and conditions of service as are applicable to the employees of the corresponding bank or status of the transferee bank. Under clause 11 the transferee bank shall before a period of 3 years from 28.8.90 grant to the employees of the transferor bank, the same terms and conditions of service as are applicable to the employees of the corresponding bank or status of the transferee bank. In terms of the powers sanctioned under clause 11 of the said scheme (Annesure D to the writ petition) the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of India has in its meeting held on 22.4.91 given the approval in the matter of bringing parity of service conditions of officer employees of the Central Bank of India. The Board decided that the officer employees of the ertstwhile Purbanchal Bank shall with effect from 1.4.91 be governed by the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulation. 1979 (for short the Regulation), subject to certain exceptions as provided in the circular dated 6.5.91 which was forwarded by the Regional Manager, Purbanchal Region vide order dated 15.5.91 (Annexure E and F respectively to the writ petition). The aforesaid Regulation have been issued by the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of India in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 19 read with section 12 (2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The Rule 1.2 under Regulation 19 of the said Regulation reads as follows: "1.2. An officer employee of the Bank recruited prior to 19th July 1969 but promoted as an officer on or after 19th July 1969 shall retire on completion of 60 years of age." Under this provision, which is applicable to the writ petitioner, it is contended, on the basis of the date of birth of the petitioner, ie, 1.9.1934 the date of retirement of the petitioner, in terms of the said Regulation is 1.9.94. 3. Further contention of the petitioner is that on or about 3rd week of June, 1992 he came to know that there was a mistake in recording the date of birth of the petitioner in the Seniority List of officers as on 1.1.92. 3. Further contention of the petitioner is that on or about 3rd week of June, 1992 he came to know that there was a mistake in recording the date of birth of the petitioner in the Seniority List of officers as on 1.1.92. His date of birth was shown in the said list to be 1.8.34 in place of 1.9.34, therefore, immediately on 20.6.92 he submitted a representation to the Chief Officer (PRS) of the Zonal Office of the Bank for necessary correction of the date of. birth alongwith his Matriculation certificate to prove his date of birth. It is alleged that the said representation was not disposed and instead he was served with a letter (Annexure I to the writ petition) dated 17.7.92 by the Chief Officer (PRS) informing him that he would reach the age of superannuation on 1.8.92 and therefore as per Bank's rule, the petitioner would be regarded as retired from bank service from 31.7.92 after the day's work. Against this the petitioner submitted a representation on 23.7.92 (Annexure J to the writ petition) before the Zonal Manager, Gauhati Zone pointing out the mistake in recording the date of birth. In the same petition he asserted that in terms of the Regulation he cannot be retired before completion of 60 years of age. In this representation also a copy of the school certificate dated 21.7.92 was attached in support of his claim. As, it is alleged, no communication has been obtained from the authority concerned the petitioner has to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the letter dated 17.7.92 (Annexure I to the writ petition). 4. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 through one SG Chottapadhaya, Chief Manager, Personnel, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office Chenikuthi, Guwahati. As regards the age of the petitioner it was averred in the affidavit-in-opposition that to ascertain the date of birth of the petitioner, service file of the petitioner has been called for which was maintained by the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Ltd. that the petitioner himself in his application dated 8.6.69 addressed to the Chief Manager of erstwhile Gauhati Bank Ltd, seeking employment had mentioned his age as 30 years 10 months as on 1.6.1969. As per the aforesaid statement of the petitioner he completed 58 years of age on 31.7.92. As per the aforesaid statement of the petitioner he completed 58 years of age on 31.7.92. It is further averred that the petitioner no where claimed that during his period of service with the erstwhile Gauhati Bank Ltd and erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Ltd had even challenged his date of birth as recorded in his service file. The respondents also pointed out that the petitioner, in fact did not submit any representation on 20.6.92 to the Chief Officer (PRS); actually he submitted an application to the Chief Officer (PRS) on 20.7.92 which is on record and that apparently this representation/letter was written by the petitioner after the letter dated 17.7.92 issued by the Chief Officer (Personnel) intimating the writ petitioner the date of his retirement (Annexure D to the affidavit-in-opposition). The stand of the respondents is that in view of the letter dated 17.7.92 the petitioner's allegation that his representation was not disposed allowing correction of age is not sustainable. As regards the Matriculation certificate the respondents counter is that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.7.92 annexing a duplicate Matriculation certificate and a school certificate. The Matriculation certificate did not bear even the signature of the Registrar of the University and as per the school certificate also the date of issue of the certificate was shown as 21.3.92 which was signed by the Headmaster on 21.7.92; that his claim of true age on the basis of the Matriculation certificate and school certificate is not tenable as it appear that correction of the age was absolutely belated and more so the representation dated 20.7.92 of the petitioner did not give any explanation for his delay for correction of his age to his previous employers. From the above discussion it appears that the petitioner's age as entered in his service book by his previous employers as well as the present employer was correct and petitioner's attempt to show his date of birth as 1.9.1934 is not sustainable. 5. The next question is whether the petitioner is entitled to his superannuation age at 60 years. As it appears the petitioner complained discrimination alleging that one officer, namely, Dilip Kumar Saikia, who was an employee of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Ltd and who was similarly placed as the petitioner was allowed to continue till the age of 60 years but the petitioner was deprived of the benefit without any reason. As it appears the petitioner complained discrimination alleging that one officer, namely, Dilip Kumar Saikia, who was an employee of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Ltd and who was similarly placed as the petitioner was allowed to continue till the age of 60 years but the petitioner was deprived of the benefit without any reason. The averment of the respondents is that the said employee of the Purbanchal Bank Ltd who was absorbed at the time of the merger of the bank with the Central Bank of India had already been superannuated prior to the reaching the age of 60 years and therefore the petitioner's allegation is not sustainable. 6. The petitioner's main claim was that under Rule 1.2 of Regulation 19 of the Regulation, which was applicable to the petitioner as discussed above, the petitioner was entitled to retirement at the age of 60 years. 7. As discussed above by the notification dated 28.8.90 (Annexure D to the writ petition) The Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by section 45 (7) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 sanctioned the scheme of the amalgamation of the Purbanchal Bank Ltd with Central Bank of India. From the reading of clause 10 and 11 of the said scheme it appears that all the employees of the transferor bank (Purbanchal Bank Ltd) shall continue in service and deemed if to have been appointed by the transferee bank (Central Bank of India) at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to such employees immediately before the close of business on 14.7.90. Clause 11 also specifically provided that the transferee bank shall before a period of 3 years from 28.8.90 grant to the employees of the transferor bank (Purbanchal Bank Ltd) the same terms and condition of service as are applicable to the employees of corresponding rank or status of the transferee bank (Central Bank of India). Clause 11 also specifically provided that the transferee bank shall before a period of 3 years from 28.8.90 grant to the employees of the transferor bank (Purbanchal Bank Ltd) the same terms and condition of service as are applicable to the employees of corresponding rank or status of the transferee bank (Central Bank of India). It appears form the circular dated 6.5.91 (Annexure F to the writ petition) and circular dated 15.5.91 (Annexure E to the writ petition) that in terms of the powers sanctioned under clause 11 of the said scheme the Board of Directors of Central Bank of India in its meeting held on 22.4.91 gave approval in the matter of bringing parity of service condition of officer/employees of the Purbanchal Bank Ltd with the official employees of Central Band of India; that the officer/employees of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Ltd would with effect from 1.4.91 be governed by the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979 subject to certain exceptions as provided in the circular dated 6.5.91 forwarded by Regional Manager, Purbanchal Region dated 15.5.91 (Annexures E and F respectively to the writ petition). 8. Clause 6 of the circular dated 6.5.91 (Annexure F to the writ petition) it appears that save and except for the purpose of promotion and placement of posting the length of service rendered in erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Ltd shall be reckoned in full on the basis of the aforesaid Regulation including provident fund, gratuity etc. Apparently the aforesaid Regulation was issued by the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of India in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 19 read with section 12 (2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. As already stated the Rule 1.2 of the Regulation 19 has given the benefit to the officer/ employees recruited prior to 19.7.69 but promoted as officer on or after 19.7.69 who shall retire on completion of 60 years of age. Apparently the petitioner was recruited with effect from 9.6.69 arid subsequently promoted to the officer grade of the Gauhati Bank Ltd with effect from 1.7.75. The petitioner was absorbed as an officer of the Central Bank of India on merger of the Purbanchal Bank Ltd. This fact is admitted by the respondents. Apparently the petitioner was recruited with effect from 9.6.69 arid subsequently promoted to the officer grade of the Gauhati Bank Ltd with effect from 1.7.75. The petitioner was absorbed as an officer of the Central Bank of India on merger of the Purbanchal Bank Ltd. This fact is admitted by the respondents. In that view of the matter admittedly as per provision of Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979 as contained in Rule 1.2 of Regulation 19 and officer/employee of the bank recruited prior to 19.7.69 but promoted as an officer on or after 19.7.69 shall retire on completion of 60 years of age. 9. The stand of the respondents that the writ petitioner joined the Central Bank of India under the scheme of amalgamation and cannot claim any benefit which is allowable to the categories of officers of the Central Bank of India covered by Rule 1.2 under Regulation 19 has to be examined. The respondent's stand as averred in the counter affidavit is that the provision of Rule 1.2 under Regulation aforesaid is not applicable in the case of the petitioner but the appropriate provision applicable to the petitioner and the like officers is clause 1.3 of Regulation 19. Clause 1.3 of Regulation 19 reads as follows : "1.3 An officer employee of the Bank recruited whether as an Award Staff or as an officer employee on or after 19th July 1969 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age." 10. From reading of clause 10 apparently it is contained that all employees of the transferor bank shall continue in service and be deemed to have been appointed by the transferee bank at the same remuneration and at the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to such employees immediately before the close of business on 14.7.90. In that view of the matter, in my view, all the benefits and conditions of service will be applicable to the employees of the transferor bank immediately before the close of business on 14.7.90. The benefit of the transferee bank will be applicable to the officer/employees of the transferor bank from or on 14.7.90. As per the scheme the writ petitioner became an employee of the Central Bank of India on and from 1.4.91 only. The benefit of the transferee bank will be applicable to the officer/employees of the transferor bank from or on 14.7.90. As per the scheme the writ petitioner became an employee of the Central Bank of India on and from 1.4.91 only. Nowhere in the scheme of amalgamation it is provided that employees of the transferor bank (Purbanchal Bank Ltd) would be entitled to work upto the age of 60 years. Further as per provision of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Ltd the age of superannuation of its employees was 58 years. Further by clause 6.5 of the scheme the length of service of employees of the transferor bank rendered in the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Ltd was decided to be taken into consideration only to effect them the various term and benefit and certain other benefits like sanctioning of loan etc. 11. From the above discussion I am constrained to hold that though the petitioner was absorbed as an officer of Central Bank of India on merger of the Purbanchal Bank Ltd his benefit had taken effect on and from 1.4.91. Therefore the provision provided under Rule 1.2 under Regulation 19 of the Regulation is not applicable in the case of the petitioner and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the age of superannuation at the age of 60 years. 12. In the result the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.