AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice of retirement and he contends that his date of birth is 3rd January, 1958 and not 3rd January, 1952 as mentioned in the service book. The service book was prepared when the petitioner was regularized long back in the year 1990. A photostat copy of the service book indicates that the same was prepared after obtaining the thumb impressions of the petitioner, which are contained in the service book. The petitioner, therefore, had full knowledge of the entries made in the service book as it was prepared in his presence.
In this view of the matter, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner came to know about the said entry in the year 2009. only. The aforesaid plea cannot be accepted. The correction of the date of birth as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be admitted at the fag end of the career keeping in view the law laid down in the case of State of U.P. and Another Vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya,
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.