JUDGMENT Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has come up in this writ petition challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 30-4-2005 passed by the Executive Engineer, Rajghat Bandh Paryavaran Bhu Arjan Prakhand Rajghat, District Lalitpur, respondent No. 3 (hereinafter called as Bhu Arjan Prakhand) by which he was being relieved prematurely w.e.f. 31-5-2005. 2. The petitioner was appointed by the Executive Engineer on work charge establishment vide appointment letter dated 14-5-1988 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) on the post of Dak Runner in the pay scale of Rs. 225-5-250-E.B-5-275. Thereafter he was promoted on the post of work agent in the pay scale of Rs. 354-10-425-E.B.-10-454-12-514-E.B. He was again promoted on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 354-540 vide order dated 20-12-1988 and has been retired on 31-5-2005 by the Executive Engineer in pursuance of the letter-dated 10-2-2005 issued by the Superintending Engineer Rajghat Bandh Paryavaran Bhu Arjan Prakhand District Jhansi. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had passed Junior High School examination conducted by the District Inspector of Schools in 1961 (appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in which his date of birth is shown as 1-6-1948. When the petitioner came to know that his date of birth had been wrongly mentioned in the service records he requested respondent No. 3 for correction of his age/date of birth in his service records. By letter dated 19-11-2003 the petitioner was directed by respondent No. 3 to file original certificate in order to send the same for verification and correction of date of birth. Accordingly the petitioner submitted original Junior High School Certificate. Respondent No. 3 by letter dated 1-1-2004 requested the Head Master of Junior High School, Dalwara, District Lalitpur to verify the certificate. The Head Master, Junior, Dalwara vide letter dated 5-1-2004 duly countersigned by the Assistant Basic Education Officer, Lalitpur certified that the certificate is genuine according to the records of the Institution. Thereafter the matter was referred by the Executive Engineer, respondent No. 3 to the Superintending Engineer Rajghat Bandh Mandal who in turn forwarded the same to the Chief Engineer, respondent No. 2. 4. Thereafter the matter was referred by the Executive Engineer, respondent No. 3 to the Superintending Engineer Rajghat Bandh Mandal who in turn forwarded the same to the Chief Engineer, respondent No. 2. 4. It appears from perusal of Annexure-10 to the writ petition, which is an office order dated 27-4-2004 passed by the Executive Engineer the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the service records allegedly on the basis of horoscope and that on verification of his date of birth as given in the Junior High School Certificate Examination passed by him in 1961. It further appears from the aforesaid order dated 27-4-2004 that in compliance of letter No. 75 dated 7-2-2004 of Superintending Engineer as well as letter No. 1923 dated 21-2-2004, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in his service book as 1-6-1948 in accordance with clause 3.02 of C.P.W.D. Manual B-3. The letter dated 27-4-2004: Þdk;kZy; vf/kkklh vfHk;Urk jkt?kkV fo|qr x`g flfoy ,oa Hk.Mkj iz[k.M jkt?kkV ¼yfyriqj½ m0 iz0A dk;kZy; vknsk bl izdj.k esa dk;Zjr Jh th0 ,l0 prqosZnh fuEu Js.kh fyfid deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok iqfLrdk esa tUedq.Myh ds vk/kkj ij tUefrfFk fnukad 1-6-1945 vafdr FkhA Jh prqosZnh }kjk izLrqr twfu;j gkbZ Ldwy ijh{kk o"kZ 1961 ds izek.k i= ds vuqlkj tUefrfFk fnukad 1-6-1948 gSA mDr kSf{kd izek.k i= dks lEcfU/kr fo|ky; ds lR;kiu mijkUr tUefrfFk ifjorZu gsrq lEiw.kZ izLrko v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk egksn; dks izsf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA o"kZ 1966 esa rRdkyhu eq[; vfHk;Urk egksn; ds izek.k&i= ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr tUefrfFk;ksa dh tk¡p lfefr }kjk tk¡p lq/kkj gsrq dk;Zokgh xbZ FkhA csrok unh ds ifj"kn ds 50 izfrkr ds yxHkx deZpkfj;ksa dh tUefrfFk o"kZ 1999 esa kSf{kd izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij vFkok eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ds izek.k i= ds vkèkkj ij ifjorZu@lq/kkj dh xbZZ Fkh tks lsok esa fu;qfDr fnukad ds yxHkx 10&15 o"kZ ckn vafdr dh xbZ FkhA blh Øe essa eq[; vfHk;Urk csrok unh ifj"kn ds i=kad&75 fnukad 7-2-2004 ,oa v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk] jkt?kkV ckW/k e.My] jkt?kkV ds i=kad 1923 fnukad 21-2-2004 ds vuqikyu esa lh0 ih0 MCY;w0 Mh eSuqvy ch&3 dh dafMdk 3-02 esa fufgr izkfo/kku ds vuqlkj deZpkjh dh kSf{kd izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij tUefrfFk fnukad 1-6-1948 lsok vfHkys[k essa vafdr dh tkrh gSA g0 viBuh; ¼ds0 ,e0 kekZ½ vfèkkklh vfHk;Urk 5. It further appears from the above letter that case of the petitioner regarding verification and change of date of birth was not a solitary case and that date of birth of 50% employees had been wrongly entered in the service record, which was being corrected even on date of birth shown in their educational certificates of 1999 or the certificates issued by the Chief Medical Officer. The service book of the petitioner was accordingly corrected mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner as 1-6-1948 in figure as well as in words and the correction was also authenticated by the Executive Engineer by patting his seal and signatures. Photocopy of the relevant page of service book duly corrected has been filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been illegally retired on 31-5-2005 and is entitled to continue in service up to 2008 according to the corrected date of his birth in the service record as 1-6-1948. 7. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner made an enquiry regarding date of retirement he was informed by respondent No. 3 that Personal Assistant (Technical) attached with the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 18-1-2005 has directed that the petitioner be retired on the basis of date of birth mentioned in the seniority list of the year 2005 as 1-6-1945 alongwith other employees as the date of birth can not be changed after 5 years of entry in service. The letter of the Personal Assistant (Technical) of the Chief Engineer has been appended as Annexure-13 to the writ petition which is as under: Þdk;kZy; eq[; vfHk;Urk jkt?kkV cka/k ifj;kstuk >kWlh i=kad 60@eq0 vfHk0 cs0 u0 i0 fnukad 18-1-2005 izfr] v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk] jkt?kkV ckW/k e.My] >kWlhA fo"k;%&&o"kZ 2005 esa lsokfuo`Ùk gksus okys dk0@iz0 deZpkfj;ksa ds lEcU/k esaA lanHkZ %&&bl dk;kZy; dk i=kad 1032@eqv0@csui@ofj"Brk lwph@fnukad 21-9-99A mijksDr lanfHkZr i=k }kjk fofHkUu iz[k.Mksa ls izkIr vkifÙk;ksa ds fujkdj.k mijkUr ofj"Brk lwph vfUre :i ls tkjh dh x;h FkhA ofj"Brk lwph ds in&pkSdhnkj ds Øekad&37 ij vafdr Jh t;jke pkSdhnkj dh tUefrfFk 13-5-43 nkkZ;h x;h gS] ftlds vuqlkj Jh t;jke dks 31-5-03 dks lsok fuo`Ùk gks tkuk pkfg;s Fkk fdUrq ,slk Kkr gqvk gS fd og vHkh Hkh lsok esa gS tcfd vkids }kjk tkjh xzsMsku lwph ds Øe la[;k 259 ij Hkh mudh tUefrfFk 13-5-1943 nkkZ;h x;h gSA dk;ZizHkkfjr deZpkfj;ksa ij ykxw dsUnzh; yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx fuxe iqLrd&3 ds iSjk 3-02 ds vuqlkj lsok esa vkus ds le; izfof"V djk;h x;h tUefrfFk esa 05 o"kZ ds mijkUr fdlh izdkj dk ifjorZu ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% izdj.k dk blh izdkj Øe la[;k 33@ofj"Brk lwph ij vafdr Jh nso flag pkSdhnkj dh tUefrfFk o"kZ 1999 esa 49 o"kZ o rhu o"kZ ds ckn Hkh xzsMsku lwph esa 49 o"kZ gh vafdr gSA Ñi;k lsok esa vkus ds le; lsok iqfLrdk esa fy[kkbZ x;h tUefrfFk ls bl dk;kZy; dks voxr djkus dk d"V djsaA o"kZ 2005 esa ofj"Brk lwph ds vuqlkj vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q iw.kZ dj lsok fuo`fÙk gksus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh lwph fuEukuqlkj izsf"kr dh tk jgh gSA Ø0la0 uke in tUefrfFk lsokfuo`Ùk dk fn0 1- Jh j?kqohj flag pkSdhnkj 1-2-1945 31-1-05 2- Jh jkenkl Bkdqj vkijsVj 1-4-1945 30-4-05 3- Jh eksrhyky isUVj 4-5-1945 31-5-05 4- Jh xkSjhkadj fuEu Js.kh fyfid 1-6-1945 31-5-05 5- Jh eqUuk yky fQVj xzsM&1 1-1-1946 31-12-05 mijksDr ds vfrfjDr vU; izdj.k Hkh ;fn izdkk esa vkrs gS rks mu ij Hkh okafNr dk;Zokgh djus dk d"V djsaA g0 @ viBuh; ¼,0 ds0 xqIrk½ oS;fDrd lgk;d ¼rduhdh½ Ñrs eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼jk0½ß 8. In the circumstances, the petitioner moved an application dated 1-5-2005 to the Executive Engineer informing that his date of birth has been corrected by competent authority which has also been entered in the service book as there is no basis to retire him on the basis of seniority list of 2005 by the Personal Assistant (Technical) on behalf of the Chief Engineer. 9. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that it is clear that the respondents board not only corrected the date of birth of the petitioner in service record but corrected the date of birth of about 50% work charge employees during the years 1999 to 2005 and that date of birth if wrongly recorded by the employer can be corrected after verification of educational records; within 5 years of the fact coming to his knowledge. In support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the case of Mahendra Nath Chaubey v. The Superintending Engineer, 56th Circle, PWD and other, (1990) 3UPLBEC-1784. 10. Sri K.C. Sinha, the Counsel for the respondents submits that Sri K.M. Sharma, the then Executive Engineer had issued an order dated 27-4-2004 due to inadvertent mistake for changing the date of birth of the petitioner and subsequently when this fact came to the knowledge he by letter dated 18-1-2005 ordered for the retirement of the petitioner with effect from 31-5-2005 on the basis of his date of birth recorded as 1-6-1945 in the service book. It is also stated that thereafter vide letter dated 9-7-2005, the petitioner was given full opportunity to explain his conduct. Hence it cannot be said that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before issuing the order-dated 8-11-2005. Moreover the order dated 27-4-2004 aforesaid passed by the Executive Engineer was unauthorized and without jurisdiction regarding change of date of birth of the petitioner from 1-6-1945 to 1-6-1948 as the Chief Engineer, respondent No. 2 had directed that action has to be taken according to the provisions of Para 3.02 of the C.P.W.D. Manual hence, the Executive Engineer Rajghat Dam has rightly cancelled the letter dated 27-4-2004 which was a nullity in the eye of law. 11. He further submits that the petitioner has also not sought change of date of birth as per the Ministry of Home Affairs Officer Memorandum dated 30-11-1999 within 5 years of the date of his entering in service. 11. He further submits that the petitioner has also not sought change of date of birth as per the Ministry of Home Affairs Officer Memorandum dated 30-11-1999 within 5 years of the date of his entering in service. Hence no change is possible as per paragraph No. 302 of CPWD Manual Vol. III. 12. It is also submitted that the petitioner has committed a fraud by interpolating his certificate of Junior High School of 1961 and as such he is not entitled for any relief in eyes of law. It can be seen that No. 5 (in Hindi) has been interpolated as 8 (in Hindi) and that charge sheet has been issued to Sri K.M. Sharma on 19-7-2005. In support of the aforesaid contentions he has cited the following rulings. 1. 2005 (I) UPLBEC-781, Lallu Yadav v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad; 2. 2000 (8) SCC-696, G.M. Bharat Cooling Coal v. Shiv Kumar Dushad and others; 3. 2005 (3) ESC 323 (SC), U.P. Madhyamik Shikasha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri; 4. 2005(3) ESC 451, State of U.P. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya. 13. The Counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the respondents vide order dated 8-11-2005 have illegally cancelled the previous order dated 27-4-2004 by means of which the date of birth of the petitioner was corrected. He further submits that the order-dated 8-11-2005 has been passed without any show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 14. Perusal of the order shows that it is wholly an exparte order and in complete violation of principles of natural justice. The averments made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit have not been denied by the respondents in the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 16-12-2003. It is evident from the record that the averments that order dated 8-11-2005 has been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and has been passed on the advice of the Counsel for the respondents. In these circumstances the order dated 8-11-2005 cancelling the order-dated 27-4-2005 appears to be an act of face saving device on the advice of the Counsel, which was not proper. It also appears from the supplementary counter-affidavits that the C.P.W.D. Manual is only for guidance and not law. In these circumstances the order dated 8-11-2005 cancelling the order-dated 27-4-2005 appears to be an act of face saving device on the advice of the Counsel, which was not proper. It also appears from the supplementary counter-affidavits that the C.P.W.D. Manual is only for guidance and not law. If it is followed in discriminately correction could be made even in a single case of date of birth whereas on the admitted facts of the case the dates of birth of more than 50% work charge employees in Betwa River Board were wrongly entered and exercise for correction of their date of birth was taken on massive scale since 1999. Further as per decision of the Betwa River Board and the Chief Engineer not even a Single order correcting date of birth of other employees have been cancelled except the five employees whose names are mentioned in order dated 8-11-2005. All other employees are continuing in service on the basis of corrected date of birth in their service records. The date of birth of the petitioner has been corrected after following due procedure and the charge-sheet issued to the executive Engineer appears to be a fabricated document prepared for the purposes of this case issued on the advice of the Counsel for the respondent and no action has been taken against the Executive Engineer who has passed the orders for correction of date of birth as per the decision of the Betwa River Board and Chief Engineer. 15. In view of the discussions made above I am of the opinion that the date of birth of the petitioner was corrected by following due procedure and under the orders of the competent authority. The order retiring the petitioner could not have been cancelled by order dated 8-11-2005 on the advice of the Counsel for the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner has been retired on the basis of date of birth contained in the seniority list of 2005 on the instructions issued by Personal Assistant (Technical) who had no authority to issue any departmental instructions. It appears that in order to justify it a charge-sheet has been issued to the Executive Engineer and thereafter cancelled the order of correction of date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of legal advice of the Counsel for the respondents. It appears that in order to justify it a charge-sheet has been issued to the Executive Engineer and thereafter cancelled the order of correction of date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of legal advice of the Counsel for the respondents. The case cited by the Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts on this case and are clearly distinguishable. 16. For the reasons stated above, the order dated 30-4-2005 retiring the petitioner from service is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to continue in service till the age of retirement on the basis of corrected date of birth i.e. 1-6-1948. Cost is assessed on the respondents as Rs. 10,000/- payable to the petitioner by respondents within one month. Petition allowed. ————