Hon’ble Rajiv Joshi, J.—Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner-a conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 29.10.2002 passed by respondent No. 2-Assistant Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Auraiya, wherein it was recorded that his date of birth in the service record was 25.2.1952 instead of 25.2.1958. The petitioner prayed for quashing of the said order and further a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to retire the petitioner on the basis of date of birth shown as 25.2.1952.

3. The brief facts as reflect from the record are that:

The petitioner was initially engaged as Labour (Mazdoor) in U.P. Government Roadways in 1974 and thereafter, he was promoted as a Conductor on 29.7.1983. The date of birth of the petitioner in Junior High School Certificate Examination, which he passed in 1971 was recorded as 25.2.1958. In the Certificate of High School Examination, 1980, a copy of which has been appended as annexure-2,, petitioner’s date of birth is also recorded as 25.2.1958. The Regional Manager vide impugned order dated 29.10.2002, however, directed that the date of birth of the petitioner will be treated as 25.2.1952 instead of 25.2.1958 on the basis of medical certificate said to have been submitted by the petitioner to the department at the time of his initial appointment. The present writ petition was dismissed by the Court vide judgment dated 23.7.2014.

Challenging the judgment and order of learned Single Judge, the petitioner preferred Special Appeal No. 778 of 2014, which was finally allowed by a Division Bench quashing the judgment and order dated 23.7.2014 and the matter was remanded back for fresh decision by the appropriate Court. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 28.8.2014 passed in Special Appeal No. 778 of 2014 reads thus :

“It is clear from the aforesaid order of the corporation dated 2.2.2002 containing the seniority list that till 2002, the date of birth of the appellant in the record of the corporation was shown as 25.2.1958 and it has been changed after making interpolation thereafter. Considering the facts that the service record of the petitioner was with the corporation and he had no opportunity to look into the same, it can be safely said that the change in date of birth of the appellant, if any,was made at the corporation level itself.

In view of above facts and circumstances, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.7.2014 is quashed and the matter is remanded back for a fresh decision by the appropriate Court within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the present order.”

4. The judgment passed in the Special Appeal specifically recorded the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 25.2.1958 in the seniority list till 2002 and it was changed after making interpolation thereafter. It is further recorded that change in his date of birth, if any, was made by the Corporation level itself. Although, initially, it was recorded as 25.2.1958.

In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Division Bench while allowing the Special Appeal, the impugned order cannot be sustained and date of birth of the petitioner is to be taken and treated as 25.2.1958 in place of 25.2.1952.

5. Now, the only question that remains to be determined is with regard to the payment of salary to the petitioner as the petitioner has already been retired from service on 28.2.2010 by the Corporation treating his date of birth as 25.2.1952, although, he was entitled to serve the Corporation till attaining the age of 60 years i.e. upto 28.2.2018 on the basis of his date of birth as 25.2.1958.

6. In this regard, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was arbitrarily retired fr