AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 233 wordsAmreshwar Sahay, J.—Heard.
The prayer of the writ petitioner in this application is for quashing the letter No. 1084, dated 20.5.1999 issued by the respondent No. 4, whereby in the light of the Standing No. 671, dated 24.3.1987, the petitioner was superannuated from service on 21.08.1999 on attaining the age of Superannuation, treating the date of birth of the petitioner to be 22.8.1939.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner is 22.08.1942 and not 22.08.1939 which is evident from Annexure-1 i.e. the photocopy of the relevant extract of the Service Book.
On the other hand in the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated specifically that there was interpolation in the Service Book regarding the date of the birth of the petitioner and the digits "39" was made by ''42'' by interpolation.
In order to verify the facts, this Court directed the learned counsel for the respondents to produce the original Service Book of the petitioner which has been produced today/From perusal of the said original Service Book of the petitioner, it is apparent that there is clear-cut interpolation and overwriting in the year in the date of birth of the petitioner and digits ''39'' has clearly made as ''42''.
In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.