The court upheld the validity of the retirement order based on the petitioner's admission of tampering with his date of birth, affirming that no hearing was required under these circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

1) The petitioner has challenged order No.DULB/Est/255/BS/589 dated 06.02.2015, whereby he has been deemed to have retired on superannuation with effect from 31.10.2013. Challenge has also been thrown to Government Order No.175-HUD of 2015 dated 09.07.2015, whereby a Committee has been constituted for conducting a thorough enquiry into the alleged tampering of date of birth of the petitioner in his service record. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon the respondents to release salary in his favour with effect from February, 2015 till he reaches the age of superannuation in April, 2018 as per his actual date of birth.

2) As per case of the petitioner, he was appointed as a Daily Wager in the respondent Department in the year 1974, whereafter his services were regularized in the year 1981. It has been submitted that the petitioner has studied upto 5th Class in a local school where his date of birth has been recorded as 20.10.1958 and the same has been entered in his service book as well. According to the petitioner, he was to attain the age of superannuation in the month of October 2018. It has been submitted that until the year 2015, the respondents never disputed the date of birth of the petitioner at any point of time but all of a sudden in the year 2015, the respondents passed impugned order dated 06.02.2015, whereby he has been superannuated from service with effect from 31.10.2013. It has been submitted that against this, the petitioner made a representation on 09.02.2015, whereafter impugned order dated 09.07.2015 came to be issued by the respondents thereby constituting a committee to conduct enquiry into the alleged tampering of date birth of the petitioner.

3) The petitioner has challenged the impugned action of the respondents on the ground that he has not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order of his retirement and, as such, the same is violative of principles of natural justice. It has been further contended that even pursuant to the impugned order dated 09.07.2015, the enquiry has not been conducted by the respondents. According to the petitioner, under the garb of impugned orders, he has not been allowed to perform his duties from February 2015 onwards, which is illegal and unlawful.

4) The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing reply thereto, wherein they have contended that the date of birth of the petitioner as per the records maintained with them in his service book is 20.10.1955 and the same is within the knowledge of the petitioner. It has been submitted that there is tampering in the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in his service book, which came to the notice of the respondents in the year 2015 whereafter impugned order dated 06.02.2015 superannuating the petitioner with effect from31.10.2013 has been passed. It has been contended that in the application dated 07.07.1981 for admission to the General Provident Fund Scheme, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 20.10.1955 and the same is the case in other documents which have been signed by the petitioner during his service career. It has been submitted that the petitioner has managed a Certificate of Birth from Government Girls Middle School, Qazigund, wherein in his date of birth is shown as 20.10.1958.

5) According to the respondents, there is a visible tampering in the service book of the petitioner and the said tampering has been done at the instance of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner has sworn an affidavit and submitted the same with the respondents wherein he has declared that he has no knowledge about the tampering of his date of birth in the service book and that the tampering has been done without his knowledge. He has further declared that he will abide by the orders/instructions that may be issued by the competent authority. The respondents have submitted that they have followed the rules of natural justice by constituting a commit