H.P. Shukla vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2012 whereby the respondents/authorities have superannuated the petitioner with effect from 31.10.2013 from the post of Forester (Vanpal) on account of having attained the age of 60 years.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a representation stating that the original date of birth of the petitioner is infact 10.10.1957 which was wrongly recorded as 10.10.1953 in the service book and in such circumstances, the date of birth be corrected and the petitioner be permitted to continue in service for another four years.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused Annexure P/4 which is a representation filed by the petitioner, it is observed that the petitioner has claimed correction of his date of birth in the service book on the basis of the voter I.D., voter list, ration card and astrological chart whereas in the same paragraph the petitioner has mentioned that his date of birth has been recorded on the basis of the mark sheet which is incorrect.

From the aforesaid, it is clear that the entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book has been made on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the mark sheet and therefore no fault can be found with the same as it is in accordance with the rules. That apart, it is further observed that the petitioner having attained superannuation from the service cannot thereafter claim correction of his date of birth recorded in the service book at the belated stage and after retirement specifically after issuance of the communication of superannuation as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of U.P. and Another Vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, and Coal India Ltd. and another v. Ardhendu Bikas Bhattacharjee & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 201. The petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed.