Duli Chand vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd.

Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner claims that his correct date of birth is 1.4.1956 whereas the respondent Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. found that the correct date of birth is 3.1.1950. Treating that date of birth of the petitioner, the respondent sought to retire the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner then

submitted SBCWP No. 11365/2009 wherein the respondent submitted that they will verify the date of birth of the petitioner again from his school record. On the basis of the said stand of the respondent, by order dated 16.12.2009, this Court permitted the respondent to verify the actual date of birth of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner''s contention is right, then he may not be retired on the basis of date of birth recorded with the respondent.

In pursuance of the order dated 16.12.2009, the petitioner was permitted to produce the proof in support of his date of birth, upon which the petitioner produced several documents including the certificate obtained from the school about his date of birth. The petitioner was given opportunity of hearing and the respondent verified the petitioner''s school record and found that there are overwritings. The respondent after considering the petitioner''s contention rejected his plea that his date of birth is 1.4.1956.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the respondent has considered the school certificate and documents of other employees and corrected their date of birth but in the case of the petitioner, the respondent has not done so. It is also submitted that the date of birth given by the petitioner is the correct date of birth.

Once the respondent has enquired into the matter in pursuance of the directions of this Court and recorded a finding of fact against the petitioner on the basis of the documents, then in writ jurisdiction, the evidence cannot be reappreciated so as to find out what is the effect of the record of the school wherein there is allegation of overwriting. The respondent also gave cogent reason in the order that the petitioner was in service since 1975 and he himself gave declaration about his date of birth and before 2009, he never objected to his recorded date of birth and at the time of superannuation, he raised the objection.

In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

The petitioner, if has any grievance against determination of his date of birth by the respondent, appropriate remedy is to get declaration of his date of birth in a regularly instituted suit only.