ORDER
N.N. Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction restraining the respondents not to superannuate the petitioner in January, 2005.
2. The petitioner’s case is that he took training of Electrician Trade in the Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.) and joined as apprentice trainee under the respondents in their training called C.T.I. and took further training in the trade of Electrician from 2.3.1973 to 3.1.1974. A certificate was issued to him in which his date of birth was shown as 16.10.1951. After completing the apprenticeship, the petitioner was appointed by the respondents on the post of Electrician on 21.5.1974. The petitioner, since thereafter, had been working in the Foundry Forge Plant of the respondents. In the month of December, 2004 the Senior Manager, Foundry Forge Plant intimated that the petitioner would retire in January, 2005. The petitioner claimed that since the date of birth was recorded in the training certificate as 16.10.1951, he is due to retire in October, 2009.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the petitioner’s claim and stating, inter alia that, the petitioner has suppressed material facts and has not disclosed that in his School Leaving Certificate, his date of birth was recorded as 16.1.1947 and on that basis in the certificate of the Industrial Training Institute, the said date of birth of 1947 was recorded. Subsequently, on the basis of the said certificate which was produced by the petitioner, his date of birth was recorded in his service record as 16.1.1947. The same was accepted by the petitioner by putting his signature (Annexure 3). The petitioner submitted nomination paper, namely pension paper etc. with his signature in which the date of birth has been clearly mentioned as 16.1.1947 (Annexure 4 series). It has been stated that when the petitioner was to retire on 31st of January, 2005, he suddenly raised the said claim disputing the entry of date of birth which he had accepted for several decades till the fag end of service tenure.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties reiterated their respective stands. No new point has been argued. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the documents brought on record, I find that in the School Leaving Certificate produced by the petitioner, his date of birth was recorded as 16.1.1947, the same date is also recorded in the I.T.I, certificate, the declaration of the date of birth furnished by the petitioner and in declaration of his nominees, signed by the petitioner. The date of birth, which was entered in the service record, remained unchallenged and when the petitioner was to retire in January 2005, he suddenly raised the said dispute on the basis of the date of birth mentioned in the C.T.I. Training Certificate. While the petitioner has himself furnished several documents putting his signature in which the date of birth is recorded as 16.1.1947 and the same were based on the date of birth mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, there is absolutely no basis of the date of birth mentioned in the C.T.I. Training Certificate. The petitioner, having furnished the said date of birth himself, which was continuously shown and maintained in all the service records, he is estopped from challenging the same at the fag end of his service tenure. The petitioner’s claim being without any legal basis, cannot be entertained and the respondents cannot be directed in the terms sought for the petitioner. There being no merit in this writ application, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.