JUDGMENT : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. K. Deka for the petitioner, and Mr. Alemwapang Ao, learned standing counsel FCI, along with Ms. Shaophen Phom. 2. The petitioner has challenged Order No. ESTT-14(1)/NMR/2014/1906-09 dated 02.08.2021, whereby he has been deemed to have retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.07.2021. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to allow him to discharge his duties as Jamadar in the Office of the Food Corporation of India, Dimapur (FCI for short), till he reaches the age of superannuation on 31.07.2028. 3. The petitioner submits that by an Order No. A.4 (59)/86 dated 13.07.1988; he was issued an offer of appointment for the post of Safaiwala in the FCI and he was asked to join after furnishing the copies of requisite documents including educational and age certificates, etc. The petitioner while submitting the documents for the post of Safaiwala in the FCI had also submitted the attestation form in duplicate in Annexure IV along with other requisite documents, which was also a requirement as per the offer of appointment, wherein the petitioner had to furnish his detailed information including his date of birth which was recorded as 24.07.1968. 4. The petitioner also states that the authorities after being satisfied with the details and documents submitted by the petitioner, allowed the petitioner to join in the service of FCI and accordingly the petitioner joined service at Food Corporation of India, Dimapur, under NEF RO, Shillong on 26.07.1988. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while discharging his duties as Safaiwala, he was promoted to the post of Jamadar and had been discharging his duties in the said post with utmost dedication and sincerity. 6. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 3 without giving prior notice of two years as mandated under the law, issued the impugned order dated 02.08.2021 informing about the retirement of the petitioner on superannuation from the service of the Corporation on 31.01.2021 without mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner as per records, whereas actual date of retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years will be 31.07.2028. Meanwhile, the respondent No. 3 while issuing the said impugned order dated 02.08.2021 was serving as General Manager in charge and therefore, not empowered or competent to issue the said impugned order without prior approval of the competent authorities and without showing any reason for issuing such illegal and arbitrary order of premature superannuation. 7. The petitioner also states that due to cyclone and heavy storm at Dimapur, in the year 2000 in the area of his residence, the petitioner lost all his relevant documents, such as birth certificate, educational certificate to prove his legitimate age. However, the identity card issued by the FCI, the statements of CPF for the year 2010-2011 and the pay slips for the month of January, 2012 and July, 2021 as provided by the FCI clearly reflects the date of birth of the petitioner as 24.07.1968. Moreover, all his identity proof, such as Aadhaar Card and Pan Card also reflects the date of birth of the petitioner as 24.07.1968. 8. The petitioner further submits that on getting the impugned Order dated 02.08.2021, the petitioner filed RTI applications before the respondent authorities seeking information as to how he has been retired from 31.07.2021 instead of 31.07.2028. However, he was not furnished any information. Instead of furnishing the information as sought for, the respondent No. 7 lodged an FIR against the petitioner before the O.C. of East Police Station, Dimapur, Nagaland, alleging tampering of age by the petitioner. 9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No. 5 on 28.11.2022 and another reminder on 29.11.2022. But the same is still pending before the concerned authority. It is submitted that the petitioner also approached the respondent No. 3 by submitting a representation dated 12.07.2023 regarding his continuation of service as Jamadar in the FCI, Dimapur, but the same was not considered. 10. The petitioner has also submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to show the records of the petitioner as requested and did not reply to any of the RTI Applications and representations submitted before the respondent authorities. Moreover, the date of birth of the petitioner is 24.07.1968 as per the records and he was declared retired on superannuation at a premature date i.e. at the age of 53 years. Moreover, the date of birth of the petitioner is 24.07.1968 as per the records and he was declared retired on superannuation at a premature date i.e. at the age of 53 years. It is stated that the service records and documents are kept in the safe custody of the respondent authorities and he has to access to the same. Therefore, if any tampering was done the same might have been done by the respondent authorities just to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate claim. 11. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of superannuation dated 02.08.2021 on the ground that he was not given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order of retirement and as such the same is violative of the principles of natural justice. Raising any discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner by the respondents after a lapse of more than 33 years of service is not tenable in the eye of law and the same violates the constitutional rights of the petitioner. According to the petitioner under the garb of the impugned order, he has not been allowed to perform his duties from 02.08.2021 onwards, which is illegal and unlawful. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 02.08.2021 and to allow him to discharge his duties as Jamadar in the FCI till his actual date on superannuation which falls on 31.07.2028. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following authorities to substantiate his arguments:- (i) AIR 1970 SC 326 , Ram Prasad Sharma Vrs. The State of Bihar (ii) AIR 1967 SC 1269 , State of Orissa Vrs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others (iii) (2022) 6 SCC 211 , SHANKAR LAL Vrs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED AND OTHERS (iv) AIR Online 2022 JHA 958; Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Vrs. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi (v) 2007 (1) GLT 142; ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD VRS PROBODH CHANDRA HAZARIKA (vi) Judgment dated 30.08.2022 of the Gauhati High Court in W.P (C) 5995/2019. 13. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing affidavit-in-opposition, where they have raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi (v) 2007 (1) GLT 142; ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD VRS PROBODH CHANDRA HAZARIKA (vi) Judgment dated 30.08.2022 of the Gauhati High Court in W.P (C) 5995/2019. 13. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing affidavit-in-opposition, where they have raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is suppression of materials facts as the petitioner has failed to reveal the fact that he was initially appointed as a casual sweeper on daily wage basis w.e.f., 05.04.1978 vide Office Order dated 07.11.1978 issued by FCI-DO Imphal, and thereafter, regularized to the post of Safaiwala vide Appointment Order dated 13.07.1988; therefore the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands. In fact, the petition needs to be dismissed at the threshold for suppression of facts. 14. Respondents submit that If the petitioner was born in 1968, the petitioner would have been nine years in 1978 i.e., at the time of his appointment as casual sweeper. It goes without saying that a boy of nine years could not have passed off as a person of 18 years which is the minimum age of employment in Government service. The respondents have contended that the petitioner submitted identity card issued by the Directorate of Employment, Government of Nagaland, vide Registration No. 2101/85/Kohima dated 03.08.1985, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is entered as 26.02.1960. Also in the statement for verification of the certificates in respect of the candidate appearing in the interview on 20.10.1987 for the post of typist/ driver/ water carrier/sweeper, the petitioner’s date of birth is shown as 26.02.1960. Further, the education proof submitted by the petitioner at the time of the interview is a class 9 certificate issued by the Headmaster, of the School duly attested by the then Assistant Manager, FCI, Dimapur, Nagaland. As per the class 9 certificate issued by the headmaster the petitioner left the school on 31.12.1975 after completing class 9. At that time, according to the admission register in the school the petitioner was fourteen years, five months and seven days when he left after passing Class 9, i.e. if calculated the date of birth will be 24.07.1961. As per the class 9 certificate issued by the headmaster the petitioner left the school on 31.12.1975 after completing class 9. At that time, according to the admission register in the school the petitioner was fourteen years, five months and seven days when he left after passing Class 9, i.e. if calculated the date of birth will be 24.07.1961. On the other hand if the date of birth is taken as claimed by the petitioner i.e., 24.07.1968, then, the petitioner would be approximately, seven years, five months at the time of completing class 9, which is an unbelievable proposition. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent further states that the petitioner is a CAT-IV employee and superannuation of CAT-IV employees is under the DOP of Assistant General Manager (PERS), as per the FCI regulation 1971. As per Regulation 22(5) the competent authority for the purpose of this regulation will be the authority competent to terminate the services of an employee of equivalent rank under clause (1) of regulation 19. Therefore the General Manager (R) is the competent authority to issue the order of superannuation to the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel further submits that in all the CPF forms from 2003 to 2004, date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 24.07.1961. It is only in the recent CPF statements that the petitioner has managed to enter his date of birth as 24.07.1968. 17. The respondents state that during the scrutiny of the documents of the petitioner it was found that the date of birth has been recorded as 24.07.1961 in some official documents, while in some other documents the date of birth has been tampered and changed to 24.07.1968. However, the matter of tampering of the date of birth came to the knowledge of the authorities only on 29.07.2021 i.e., one day ahead of his due date of superannuation. Therefore, on 06.10.2021 an FIR was lodged before the East Police Station, Dimapur against the petitioner for cheating and tampering of documents in connivance with some of the FCI staff and for changing his date of birth from 24.07.1962 to 24.07.1968. The respondents further submit that as per the oldest records maintained with the authorities, the date of birth of the petitioner is 24.07.1961. It is submitted that there is tampering in the date of birth of the petitioner which came to the notice of the respondents on 29.07.2021. 18. The respondents further submit that as per the oldest records maintained with the authorities, the date of birth of the petitioner is 24.07.1961. It is submitted that there is tampering in the date of birth of the petitioner which came to the notice of the respondents on 29.07.2021. 18. Thereafter, the impugned Order dated 02.08.2021, superannuating the petitioner w.e.f., 30.07.2021 has been passed. It has been contended that in the original service records of the petitioner the tampering by the petitioner can be clearly seen with the naked eyes. According to the respondents, there is visible tampering in the service book and the records of the petitioner and the said tampering has been done at the instance of the petitioner. The respondents have found out that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 24.07.1961 and he has been rightly allowed to retire on superannuation w.e.f., 30.07.2021 at the age of 60. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the petition is hit by delay and laches. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed on 02.04.2021, whereas the present writ petition was filed only in 2024, after a lapse of three years. Accordingly it can be safely concluded that the writ petition is an afterthought and as such the petition filed after a delay of three years cannot be entertained and is barred by delay. Moreover, there are disputed question of facts in the present petition as the petitioners records show that there are three year of birth in respect of the petitioner, being 1960, 1961 and 1968 and the writ court cannot assume jurisdiction when there are disputed question of facts. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following cases to support his submissions:- (i) (2007) 8 SCC 449 ; PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD. VERSUS STATE BANK OF INDIA (ii) (2014) 4 SCC 108 ; CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS VERSUS T.T. MURALI BABU and (iii) Order dated 04.04.2025 in Arun Chandra Saikia Vrs State of Assam & 4 others; WP(C)/5042/2018 of the Gauhati High Court. 21. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed on record by the parties along with their pleadings, as also the original service records produced by the respondents. 22. 21. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed on record by the parties along with their pleadings, as also the original service records produced by the respondents. 22. From the affidavit of the respondents it emerges that the petitioner was initially appointed as a casual sweeper on daily wage basis by an Office Order dated 07.11.1978 w.e.f., 04.04.1978. The original service book, which has been produced by the respondents shows visible tampering at many places and it appears that the figure 1 (one) has been tampered with and made to appear as the figure 8 (eight). Even in the attestation form submitted at the time of petitioner’s appointment as Safaiwala on regular basis it is seen that in column 7(A), against date of birth a whitener has been used and on top of that the numbers 24.07.1968 has been typed. The petitioner has expressed his ignorance about the tampering, but on perusal of the original records it is clear that this is not a case where the impugned order has been passed by the respondents in violation of the principles of natural justice, but it is a case where the petitioner has tampered in his service record relating to his date of birth. It is obvious that the tampering benefits the petitioner and not the respondent authorities. 23. In the case of Arun Chandra Saikia (supra), a coordinate bench of this Court was dealing with a similar matter. The Court held that: “ 11. ……………… If we are to assume that the petitioner's correct date of birth is 01.12.1967, then the petitioner is to retire from Government service on 30.11.2027, i.e., after being in Government service for 51 years, in which case, he would have been a private citizen without any government job for only 9 years of his first 60 years of his life. It is impossible for a boy of 9 years to be appointed into Government service, unless his physical features showed the appearance of a person being 18 years or older. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed into Government service at the age of 9 years. His physical attributes at the age of 9 years would have been there for all the world to see that the petitioner was a young boy. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed into Government service at the age of 9 years. His physical attributes at the age of 9 years would have been there for all the world to see that the petitioner was a young boy. His colleagues and the officials would have all seen that a boy could not have been appointed to Government service. 12. Interestingly, the petitioner has not annexed any of his appointment/transfer/promotion orders in the writ petition, though the letter dated 15.05.2018 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Sivasagar shows that the petitioner had joined service as a personal peon on 15.11.1976…… 16…………….it has also to be kept in mind that fraud vitiates everything. The issue of fabricating documents needs to be gone into. As such, the petitioner’s date of birth, for the reasons stated above, cannot be 01.12.1967. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be allowed to receive any benefit out of a fraud/misrepresentation perpetuated by him and probably in connivance with certain officials/authorities in the government of Assam……… 19. in view of the reasons as stated above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner’s date of birth as recorded in his service book when he joined has to be taken as his correct date of birth, i.e., 31.07.1958…” 24. In the present case also the respondents have been able to show that the petitioner was engaged as a casual sweeper in the year 1978. This fact was suppressed by the petitioner. If his date of birth is taken as 24.07.1968, at the time of his engagement as casual sweeper his age would have been about nine years. It is impossible for a person to be appointed in government service at the age of 9. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as a casual sweeper by relaxation of age. Therefore, the date of birth projected by the petitioner is not acceptable or believable. The educational proof on record submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment is the class 9 pass certificate which shows that he left the school after passing class 9 on 31.12.1975, and as per the school admission register he was fourteen years, five months and seven days at that time. The educational proof on record submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment is the class 9 pass certificate which shows that he left the school after passing class 9 on 31.12.1975, and as per the school admission register he was fourteen years, five months and seven days at that time. Therefore, if the date of birth is taken as 24.07.1968, as claimed by the petitioner he will be about seven years five months at the time of completing class 9. However, going by the class 9 leaving certificate, the petitioner was fourteen years five months and seven days at that time, which means that his date of birth is 24.07.1961. Even otherwise, the date of birth of the petitioner can never be taken as 24.07.1968 because he has entered service as casual sweeper in the year 1978. And if his year of birth is taken as 1968 he would not have attained the minimum age for entering into Government service in 1978. He could not have been legally appointed due to being under-age. 25. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the present case is not one relating to premature retirement, but it is a case where, from the very beginning the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 24.07.1961, but his date of birth was tampered by the petitioner. In the case of Kashmiri Lal Sharma Vrs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & Anr, reported in 2025 INSC 472 , the Supreme Court held that an employee has no fundamental right as regards the age at which he would retire. And that termination on account of reaching age of superannuation does not amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there was no requirement for the respondents to hold an inquiry into the matter before passing the impugned retirement order. The impugned order by no stretch of imagination can be said to be premature retirement. An employee cannot typically continue in service based on a tampered date of birth if the tampering is done to gain an advantage, such as extending service or claiming benefits based on a younger age. 26. The impugned order by no stretch of imagination can be said to be premature retirement. An employee cannot typically continue in service based on a tampered date of birth if the tampering is done to gain an advantage, such as extending service or claiming benefits based on a younger age. 26. The authorities relied upon by the petitioner relates to cases where there was correction of date of birth by the employer at the fag end of the employee’s service. The facts are entirely different in the present case and therefore the cases are not applicable to this petition. 27. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the instant case, there was no requirement for the respondents to either offer an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or to hold inquiry into the matter before passing the impugned order of retirement. 28. In view of what has been discussed here in above, the writ petition is dismissed. The respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are however directed to release the retiral benefits in favor of the petitioner in accordance with law. 29. The original records be returned to the learned standing counsel for the FCI.