Oral Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives notice. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that he was prematurely retired with effect from 31st March, 2007, claiming that his real date of birth is 1st June 1950 and not 18th March, 1947.

3. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that he had joined the services of the respondents on 29th March 1971 as a labourer. The petitioner had produced a School Leaving Certificate dated 22nd December, 1970 of Jeevan Shikshan Shala, Nate and on that basis his date of birth was recorded as 1st June 1950 which the petitioner had confirmed as correct. The Petitioner was issued retirement memo dated 25th September, 2006, retiring him from the services w.e.f. 31st March, 2007.

4. The Petitioner, in response, had called upon the respondents to withdraw the retirement memo. The authorities asked the petitioner to produce the original School Leaving Certificate dated 22nd December, 1970 and asked him to bring a fresh School Leaving Certificate from the school. According to petitioner, he had produced the fresh School Leaving Certificate from the school and in December, 2006 the authorities concerned had confirmed genuineness thereof but told the Petitioner that he was free to go to Court instead of asking for withdrawing the retirement memo.

5. The Petitioner had moved the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.49 of 2007, which directed the respondents to produce the original service record of the petitioner. According to petitioner, the original service record was not produced by respondents on the ground that it was missing but an attested form was produced in which the petitioner’s date of birth was shown as 1st June 1950. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the respondents should first consider the representation of the Petitioner and upon decision on such representation by the respondents, the Petitioner, if aggrieved by the decision of the Competent Authority, can approach Central Administrative Tribunal. Hence Original Application No. 49 of 2007 was disposed of. Thus, the petitioner approached the respondents on 16th April, 2007 with his representation. The General Manager who acted as competent authority on behalf of the respondents, rejected the representation, without allowing the petitioner to be represented by Union’s representative at the time of personal hearing. The petitioner, aggrieved by order dated 12th May, 2007 filed Original Application No.327 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was rejected on 31st December, 2007. The Petitioner filed Review Application No.4 of 2008 which was allowed and Original Application No.327 of 2007 was restored on 18th March 2008.

6. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after hearing the parties, dismissed Original Application No.327 of 2007 by order dated 31st March, 2009 which is under challenge.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had challenged his retirement on the ground that it was not based on the correct date of birth. The respondents came up with false defence that the original service record was missing and overlooked the attestation form filled-up at the time of the appointment which shows the petitioner’s correct date of birth as 1st June 1950. Learned Counsel submitted that the duplicate service book sought to be relied upon by the respondents, showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 18th March 1947, was not prepared after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hence is not binding on the petitioner.

8. Learned Counsel made reference to Swamy’s Fundamental Rules as to retirement of Government Servants that a workman governed under the Rules shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of th