D.N. Patel, J.

I.A. No. 6386 of 2017

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 28 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, especially in paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We therefore, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Accordingly, LA. No. 6386 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 64 of 2017

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4422 of 2009 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2016, whereby prayer for change of the date of birth from 29.11.1948 to 06.07.1954, was not accepted by the learned Single Judge, and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. The writ petition was preferred after one year of his retirement.

2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is the original petitioner who was employed as Class-IV employee with the respondents with effect from 29.11.1973.

3. Much has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that his correct date of birth is 06.07.1954, where as per the record of the respondents- company it is 29.11.1948. Thus. there is approximately 5 years difference in the two birth dates. It is alleged by the counsel for the appellant that he is younger by 5 years than what has been recorded by the respondents-company in its record for which he has relied on the medical record-cum-identity book, issued by the respondents-company, which is at page 22 of the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal.

4. None of these contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant, is accepted mainly for the following reasons :

(a) Looking to the service record of this appellant which is at Annexure-A of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in the writ petition, it appears that the age of appellant (original petitioner) was 25 years as on 29.11.1973. There is a signature of this appellant on the said service record where correction carried out in the service record. The signature is over and above the regular signature of this appellant on the service record, because there was a correction.

(b) It further appears from the facts of the-case that notice was given six months in advance on his retirement, Le., in the month of July, 2008 and no writ was preferred immediately.

(c) It appears that this appellant has retired on 30.11.2008 and the writ petition was preferred in the year 2009. Thus, it is explicitly clear from the service record that date of birth which is alleged by this appellant, cannot be accepted and as per the service record, it is November, 1948. Thus, no error has been committed by the respondents company in superannuating this appellant on 30.11.2008 by reaching at the age of 60 years.

(d) Nowadays, it has become fashion to challenge the date of birth after retirement, which cannot be accepted by this Court. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.4 onwards that date of birth as per service record of this appellant maintained by the respondents company is 29th November, 1948, and' hence., his superannuation is on 30.11-2008.

5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Harnam Singh reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162, in paragraph No: 7 which reads as under :-

"7. A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. The da