JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order, dated 24.10.1999 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi whereby the petitioner has been made to retire with effect from 31.7.1999 taking his date of birth as 10.7.1941.
2. Petitioner’s case, inter alia, is that he was appointed on the post of Constable in 1964. Thereafter, he applied for permission for appearing in matriculation examination. The petitioner passed matriculation examination in 1970. In 1971 the petitioner submitted his matriculation certificate with a view to obtain promotional benefits. The petitioner was sent for obtaining training and he was promoted to the post of ASI. At the time of the petitioner came to know about the incorrect entry in the service records and, therefore, he made a representation before the authority for correction of his date of birth from
10.7.1941 to 13.4.1945. Petitioner’s date of birth was, accordingly corrected by the respondent-authority and a direction was issued for making correction in the date of birth of the petitioner in the service records according to the matriculation certificate. The date of birth was, accordingly, corrected on the basis of the matriculation certificate. However, despite correction made in the service records, the petitioner was served with the impugned letter of superannuation taking his date of birth as 10.7.1941.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed wherein the respondents have taken a stand that the service book of the petitioner was opened at the time of his joining and his date of birth was entered as 10.7.1941. Respondents’ case is that as per the provisions of Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules, the date of birth can only be altered within a period of 10 years from the date of joining and, therefore, after lapse of about 17 years the then Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration) had no authority to correct or change or alter the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book. It is further stated that no distinct order was issued by the competent authority for correction of the date of birth. In that view of the matter the date of birth illegally corrected in the service records cannot be taken into account for the purpose of superannuation of the petitioner.
4. Some of the relevant facts pleaded in the writ petition have not been denied or disputed by the respondents. The petitioner was appointed in 1964 and in 1970 he passed matriculation examination where his date of birth was recorded as 13.4.1945. In 1970-71 when his case for promotion was considered, he after having come to know about the entry incorrectly made in his service records, made a representation for correction of his date of birth. The objection/representation of the petitioner remained pending for so many years and it was only in 1981 the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Bihar, Patna passed an order directing the concerned authority to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service records according to the matriculation certificate. A copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ application. But, inspite of the aforesaid order when the date of birth of the petitioner was not corrected in the service
records, the petitioner again tiled representation on 15.12.1982 and ultimately the date of birth of the petitioner was corrected in the service records in 1983. However, at the fag end of the retirement, the respondents issued the impugned letter informing the petitioner that he is to superannuate with effect from 31st July, 1999. The petitioner, in support of correctness and genuineness of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate, has filed a photocopy of the extract of the Admission Register of the school duly certified by the Headmaster as Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ application. In the Admission Register the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 13.4.1945. The genuineness and correctness of the Admission Register has not been disputed by the respondents, it is also not the case of the respondents that any interpolation has been made in the service records or service book nor is there any material on the basis of which the respondents could dispute the correctness of the date of birth of the petitioner.
5. In such circumstance, it can be safely concluded that the copy of the Admission Register coupled with matriculation certificate are the evidence of correct date of birth of the petitioner as 13.4.1945. I am conscious of the legal propositions that when there is dispute with regard to date of birth, then the same has to be resolved or adjudicated by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. But, in the instant case, inspite of the fact that the authority, namely, the Deputy Inspector General of Police and other authorities have passed orders as far back as in 1981 and directed the subordinate authorities to make correction in the date of birth of the petitioner in the service records on the basis of his matriculation certificate and, in fact, it was corrected but even then the respondents issued the impugned letter informing the petitioner that he will superannuate on the basis of incorrect date of birth recorded in the service book. This being the factual position; this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in order to do justice with the petitioner.
6. This writ application is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is quashed and it is declared that on the basis of correct date of birth of the petitioner, i.e., 13.4.1945, he will retired from service. The respondents are
directed to immediately allow the petitioner to resume his service. The petitioner shall join within a week and on his joining the competent authority shall pass order of his posting.
7. It appears that the impugned letter, dated 24.10.1999 was issued superannuating the petitioner with effect from 31.7.1999. Admittedly the petitioner has not discharged his duty after 24.10.1999. Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly submitted that since the petitioner was forced not to work, he is entitled to salary with effect from the date he was out of service. In the facts of the case. I direct that the petitioner shall be entitled to get full salary even after 31.7.1999 till the date when he left service. For the remaining period, i.e., from the date he left service till the date he submits his joining, he shall be entitled to atleast 50% wages with benefit of continuity of service. 50% of wages payable to him, as ordered, shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of his joining.
8. Writ petition allowed.