Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 880 (RAJ)

Kundan Singh v. J. V. V. N. L.

2009-03-26

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon'ble ASOPA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.8.1994 (Annexure/3) by which the petitioner was going to be retired on 30.6.1995 on attaining the superannuation age of 58 years. 3. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that in the check form filled on 20.4.1978 wherein his age has been shown as 24 years without referring the date of birth and year of birth, therefore, the month ought to have been taken as per amended Regulation 4(D)(3)(Ex.R/5). According to which, if the year of birth is know but the month is not known then the month has to be taken as July of the respective year and as regard the year the same is to be calculated from the age i.e. 24 years mentioned in check form dated 20.4.1978 but without determining the age as per the amended regulation dated 3.8.1990. The petitioner has been retired although he will retire as per the check form, the calculation on 30.6.2001. 4. The submission of Mr. Virendra Lodha, counsel for the respondents is that apart from the check form, the petitioner has filled various documents during service wherein categorically the date of birth is 1st of July 1937 which have been annexed with the reply as Annexure R/1 to Annexure R/7 except Annexure R/5 which is amended regulation. Therefore, there is even no need to invoke the amended of regulations No. 4(D)(3) and (4) and they have acted as per amended sub-regulation No. 5. 5. Counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder also submits that the petitio-ner is an illiterate persons and he knew the signature and all other documents referred by the respondents have been filled by the respondent authorities, whereas document Ex. 1 was filled as per the saying of the petitioner and the same was changed by the department without notice to the petitioner. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the parties and also gone through the contents of the writ petition. 7. Before proceeding further the amended sub-regulation 4(d)(3)(4) and (5) are as under:- "(3). If the year of birth of an employee is known but not the exact month and date, 1st July of the year should be treated as the date of birth for the purpose of this Regulation. 7. Before proceeding further the amended sub-regulation 4(d)(3)(4) and (5) are as under:- "(3). If the year of birth of an employee is known but not the exact month and date, 1st July of the year should be treated as the date of birth for the purpose of this Regulation. It the year and month of the birth of an employee are known but not exact date, the 16th of the month will be taken as the date of his birth for the purpose of these regulations. (4) If neither the year nor the month is known or date of birth entered in the service Book is doubtful or having no base, the competent authority may at his discretion refer the case either to the Principal, District Medical Officer of the Govt. of Rajasthan or a Medical Practitioner approved by the Board or Medical Board constituted by the RSEB, the certificate specifying the approximate year, may be accepted by the competent authority under Regulation (3) above. (5) The evidence in proof of age should be produced immediately at the time of joining. No representation for corrections of age recorded at the time of joining shall be entertained if it is not made within three years of joining the service." 8. In my view, the respondents have violated sub-regulation 4(D)(4), according to which the matter was required to be referred to the Principal, District Medical Officer of the Govt. of Rajasthan because the present case creates a doubt on the date of birth of petitioner as the same was not specifically mentioned in the check form. However, the age is mentioned and further all the documents are of the department, although the same might have been signed by the petitioner but the check form being the first document was required to be examined with reference to amended sub-regulation 4(D)(4). 9. In view of the above, the order of retirement dated 30th of June 1995 is kept in abeyance and the respondents are directed to make fresh determination as per sub-regulation 4(D)(4) within a period of 3 months and in case it is found that the petitioner is still not attained the age of superannuation then he shall be reinstated in service and will be entitled for all benefits from 4.8.1982 till the date of reinstatement. 10. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.