JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri A. Ganguli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC for the respondent no.1. Shri S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri K. Kalita, learned counsel has appeared for the contesting respondent nos. 2 to 9.

2) Considering the subject matter in dispute and also the fact that exchange of pleadings are already complete, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3) The petitioner is aggrieved by the action on the respondent authorities in not considering his prayer for correcting his date of birth in his Service Book. While the petitioner claims his date of birth to be 31.05.1967, the one recorded in his Service Book is 07.05.1960 as a result of which according to the petitioner he would be deprived from his entitlement to be in service for a period of approximately seven years.

4) Before going to the issue which calls for determination, it would be convenient to place the basic facts on record. The petitioner claims to have read upon to Class IX and is equipped with a school certificate issued by the Head Master of the Bhadoi H. E. School, in which the age was stated to be 15 years 7 months. The petitioner has accordingly deduced his date of birth to be 31.05.1967. The petitioner claims to have registered himself in the Employment Exchange, Duliajan, with registration no. 3284/87, in which the date of birth was recorded as 31.05.1967.

5) The petitioner was initially appointed in the job of Grade-I as Trade-I in the Oil India Ltd. and he claims that at the time of entering into services the school certificate and Employment Exchange Certificate were submitted. After working for a year from 1997 to 1998, the petitioner was confirmed in the job w.e.f. 24.06.1998.

6) The projected case of the petitioner is that on coming to know of the incorrect recording of his date of birth in his Service Book as 07.05.1960, he had made a representation on 11.04.2018 followed by another on 27.04.2019, which were turned down by the respondent authorities.

7) According to the petitioner, his date of superannuation should have been 31.05.2027 instead of 07.05.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that no proper opportunity was granted to him to convince the respondents regarding his correct date of birth and his prayer was rejected in a mechanical manner for which he had suffered grave prejudice in the form of loss of service for about 7 years.

8) Shri Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all contemporaniou records including the school leaving certificate dated 04.06.1994, the Employment Exchange Certificate, the Driving License, PAN Card, Adahar Card and even the Passport of the petitioner contains the death of birth of the petitioner as 31.05.1967, which according to him is the correct date of birth. The learned counsel accordingly, argues that in view of the overwhelming materials to substantiate his date of birth as 31.05.1967, it would be absolutely unjustified to record his date of birth as 07.05.1960 which has to be clarified to be 07.08.1960.

9) It is further submitted that the petitioner at the time of induction in the service, had submitted the school certificate. However, ignoring the same, his date of birth was recorded based on a medical examination, which is not contemplated under the law in view of the availability of a certificate. In support of his submission Shri Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment dated 31.07.2012 rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WP (C) 3403/2012 in the case of Mantu Ram Talukdar Vs. The Union of India & Ors.

10) Per contra, Shri Sarma, learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent nos. 2 to 9 submits that the issue involved is no longer resintegra in view of the categorical law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time again. Turning it to be a usual practice on the part of an employee to raise an issue of incorrect date of birth at the verge of r