Order on Board

16.03.2026

1. The respondent No.4/writ petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 3057/2023 challenging the order dated 23.01.2023 passed by respondent No.3 whereby he was retired from service with effect from 31.01.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3057/2023 and in view of the liberty granted by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 31/2026 vide order dated 20.01.2026, the applicant has been constrained to file the present review petition seeking reconsideration of the aforesaid order on the grounds available in law.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.4 was originally serving under respondent No.2 and, upon the formation of the applicant corporation vide notification dated 26.12.2019, his services were merely attached with the applicant corporation. Subsequently, vide letter dated 08.06.2022, he was informed that he would retire on 31.01.2023 upon attaining the age of 62 years. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 submitted a representation dated 03.10.2022 seeking correction of his date of birth from 18.01.1961 to 18.08.1961. The said representation was forwarded by the applicant vide letter dated 17.11.2022 to respondent No.2 along with the service records of the writ petitioner for verification and necessary correction. However, respondent No.3 proceeded to pass the order dated 23.01.2023 retiring the writ petitioner from service with effect from 31.01.2023, which order was challenged before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. The writ petitioner, in the said petition, contended that his correct date of birth was 18.08.1961 as reflected in various authentic documents including his educational certificates, mark sheets and the seniority list of Pump Operators published by respondent No.2 as on 01.04.2018. It was further contended that the entry of his date of birth as 18.01.1961 in the service records was merely a typographical error committed by the office of respondent No.2 and that respondent No.3 had also acknowledged such error and recommended correction of the same. However, despite the representation made by the writ petitioner prior to his retirement, the respondents failed to rectify the error and proceeded to pass the impugned order of retirement, thereby compelling him to approach this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench suffers from serious legal infirmities inasmuch as the writ petition was decided without properly considering the stand of the present applicant. It was contended that the writ petitioner was never absorbed in the service of the applicant corporation and had remained an employee of respondent No.2 throughout his service tenure, his services having been merely attached with the applicant corporation after its formation. It was further submitted that the order of retirement as well as the disbursement of retiral dues were undertaken by respondent No.3 alone and not by the applicant corporation. However, the learned Single Bench, while allowing the writ petition, treated the writ petitioner as an employee of the applicant corporation and fastened upon it the liability to grant consequential benefits including reinstatement, arrears of salary and other dues with interest @ 6% per annum. It was further argued that a vide order dated 20.01.2023 passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting the representation of the writ petitioner for correction of his date of birth could not be brought on record before the learned Single Bench, as the writ petition was decided without calling for the clarification or stand of respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicant preferred Writ Appeal No. 31/2026 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, after hearing the matter, granted liberty to the applicant to raise the issue before this Court under its review j