Lalji Misra vs State of U.P. & others

O.P. Mehrotra, J.—Petitioner Lalji Misra who is a Sub Inspector of Police, has filed this petition for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.9,1986 (Annexure II to the writ petition) passed by Superintendent of Police, Hardoi. requiring the petitioner to submit his pension papers on the assumption that he was born on 27.11.1928 and as such was due to retire on 30.11.1986 on attaining the age of 58 .years. The petitioner''s contention is that he is entitled to continue in service for one more year and is due to retire on 30.11.1987

When this petition came up for admission on 28.11.1986, the teamed Standing Counsel was directed to produce the original record of service of the petitioner and the petition was listed for final hearing and it was ordered that in the meanwhile the petitioner shall fee deemed to be continuing in service though no work may be taken from him.

A very short point was involved in this petition and the same could be decided on the basis of entries in the service book and interpretation of the relevant rule. It was for this reason that the parties were not required to tile counteraffidavit and rejoinderaffidavit, and instead the original service book was summoned and date for final hearing was fixed. We have perused the original service book of the petitioner and have heard teamed counsel for both the parties.

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitions service as a constable on 27.11.1948. The service book shows that the petitioner at the time of recruitment, gave his age as 20 years, which means that his date of birth was 27.11.1928. However, his age as certified by the Civil Surgeon was 19 years and the Superintendent of Police also fixed his age as 9 years. This is evident from a perusal of the service book itself. Para 301 of the Police Office Manual provides as follows:

If the age stated by the recruit differs from that certified by the Civil Surgeon, the Superintendent of Police should make a careful inquiry and record a finding as to the correct age; he should then note the age so determined on page 1 of the roll opposite the other entries relating to age. The entry should be in the form ''Age determined by Superintendent of Police'' and should be signed and dated by the Superintendent of Police.�

In the present case, the age as stated by the recruit (petitioner) differs from the age certified by the Civil Surgeon inasmuch as while the age stated by the recruit was 20 years the age certified by the Civil Surgeon was 19 years. The first page of the service book contains columns in which the age as stated by the recruit, as certified by Civil Surgeon and as fixed by Superintendent of Police is recorded. In the column against the age �as fixed by Superintendent of Police�, the entry is ''19 years'' meaning thereby that the Superintendent of Police agreed with the Civil Surgeon and noted the age of petitioner as 19 years. Consequently, the age as fixed by Superintendent of Police should be taken as the correct age. As the age of the petitioner as fixed by the Superintendent of Police was 19 years at the time of his recruitment, his date of birth should have been entered as 27.11.1929 and not 27.11.1928. The petitioner was, therefore, due to retire on 27.11.1987 on attaining the age of 58 years and he was wrongly asked to be retired on 27.11.1986. This petition should, therefore, succeed.

In the result, the, petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 18.9.1986 (Annexure II to the writ petition) passed by Superintendent of Police, Hardoi requiring the petitioner to retire on 30.11.1986 is quashed and it is held that the correct date of birth of the petitioner should be taken as 27.11.1929 so that he is due to retire in the ordinary course with effect from 30.11.1987. Costs on parties.

(Revision allowed)