JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents for shifting the date of joining from 28.04.1988 to 29.01.1988.

3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. Vide Notification No. 1-A-10-17/87-320 dated 24.12.1987, petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on the pay-scale of Rs. 785-25-1135-EB-25-1210 and accordingly, he gave his joining on 29.01.1988 before the Advance Planning Division, Bihar, Patna. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent on deputation at Hazaribagh Mining Department and accordingly, he gave his joining there on 28.04.1988. The aforesaid facts finds support from the service book of the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though the date of joining of the petitioner was 29.01.1988, the custodian of the service book while making note, changed the date of appointment to 28.04.1988. By making cutting in the column of the date of appointment, the date 28.04.1988 was entered and that was accepted as the date of joining of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that cutting was not done by him as he was neither the custodian of his service book nor his signature finds place on the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities but no consideration was shown and hence, he was constrained to knock the door of this Court.

4. Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that admittedly the date of joining of the petitioner was 29.01.1988 which finds place in the service excerpts itself. Learned counsel submits that from perusal of page-18 of the writ petition it appears that cutting was done by the custodian of the service book and not by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has retired on 31.05.2021 and thereafter, has accepted the retiral benefits but from the service excerpts it is clear that date of joining of the petitioner is 29.01.1988 and as such, on legal advice, he approached this Court to get the date changed to its original date of joining as 29.01.1988 instead of 28.04.1988. Learned counsel further argues that merely because the petitioner has accepted the retiral benefits, the same may not come in the way of the Court in directing the respondents to shift the date of joining of the petitioner from 28.04.1988 to 29.01.1988.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that from the service excerpts it is clear that date of joining of the petitioner is 28.04.1988 and the petitioner himself has endorsed the same by putting his signature. Learned counsel further argues that even the service of the petitioner was approved and it has been clearly mentioned that date of joining of the petitioner is 28.04.1988 and petitioner was fully aware of the same and now, it cannot be said that he was not aware of his date of joining. It was open for the petitioner to represent before the respondents and merely because once he has made representation before the respondents, it cannot be construed that now onus lies upon respondent-authorities to correct the date of joining of the petitioner and the petitioner has nothing to do with the same. Further, petitioner has approached this Court after 18 long years and the delay in approaching the Court has not at all been explained and on that ground itself, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed in limine.

6. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-AG submits that petitioner has received all pensionary benefits and the same has already been authorized in terms of the departmental sanction order as contained in Letter No. 1527 dated 29.10.2021 considering the date of joining of the petitioner as 28.04.1988, which was mentioned in online pension papers forwarded by the concerned Department. Learned counsel further argues that it is not open for the pet