IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6412 of 2010 Decided on : 20.6.2011 Amar Nath Trivedi ..… Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayer:- “That the respondents may very kindly be directed to release the retrial benefits of the petitioner towards regular pension, GPF, Gratuity, Interim relief, GIS etc. w.e.f. due date alongwith interest.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 2:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 “That this para calls for no submissions in view of the facts and submissions as submitted in the preliminary submissions of the reply. However, it is submitted that in the departmental enquiry it has been ascertained that the petitioner has made illegal change in his date of birth from 10.6.41 to 10.5.1946. For this alleged act of cheating, the petitioner was served with Memorandum of Article of charges under Rule-14 by the disciplinary authority and the enquiry was got conducted under the Rules ibid and penalty was imposed on him under the Rules.” 3. Rejoinder refuting the stand taken on behalf of the respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 4. The controversy between the parties lies within a narrow compass. The petitioner was working in the respondent-department as a JBT teacher. There was a dispute with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. Whereas, according to him, he was born on 15.8.1946, which date also stood recorded in his service book as well as in school records. However, according to the department, his date of birth is 10.5.1941, which he had tampered with and shown the same as 15.8.1946. 5. Against the above backdrop, the date of birth of the petitioner was changed in the service record 3 from 15.8.1946 to 10.5.1941. Being aggrieved, he filed original application (O.A No. 1706/99, Shri Amar Nath Trivedi vs. State of H.P. and others) in the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, wherein the following interim order dated 31.5.1999, was passed:- “This Original Application has been filed by the applicant against the change of date of birth recorded in his Service Book from 15.8.1946 to 10.5.1941 by the respondent State many years against his having joined the service. The applicant claims that he came to know of this change only when he learnt that the respondent State is proposing to retire him w.e.f May 31, 1999. He has, therefore, filed this Original application on the ground t hat date of birth could not be changed unilaterally because the order of the respondent to change his date of birth has not been communicated to the applicant. The learned Additional Advocate General was directed to produce the Service Book of the applicant to consider the case for interim direction. Service Book has been produced which has been seen by us. Although the Service Book shows the letter addressed to the Registrar, Punjab University, Chandigarh and copy endorsed to the Director of Primary Education, Hamirpur by the Director of Primary Education dated 4 25.4.1985 has been pasted on his Service Book. No endorsement of this letter seems to have been made to the applicant. The Service Book further shows that the original date of birth mentioned in his Service Book was 15.8.1946 which has been cut subsequently and amended to be 10.5.1941. This change has been signed by the Block Primary Education Officer on 7.6.1986. Reply be now filed on or before June 21, 1999 on which date the case be listed. Till that time, the applicant be not retired from service and be allowed to continue working. ‘Dasti Copy’.” 6. The original application remained pending before the said Tribunal and on its abolition was transferred to this court and registered as CWP(T) No. 5862/2008, Shri Amar Nath Trivedi vs. State of H.P. and others, which was ultimately disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 13.5.2010, which reads as under:- “The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this petition has become infructuous. Disposed of as such.” 7. In the meantime, on the strength of the interim order dated 31.5.1999, passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner continued in service and ultimately retired on 31.8.2004. Now he has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents to release the retrial benefits 5 such as GPF, Gratuity, Interim relief and GIS etc. to him w.e.f. due date along with interest. 8. Though the date of birth of the petitioner is disputed by the respondent-department, according to which he ought to have retired on and w.e.f. 31.5.1999, but continued in service on the force of the stay order granted by the Tribunal. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has since retired from service. It is another matter whether he was to retire from service on 31.5.1999 or 31.8.2004. Thus, he is entitled for retrial benefits in accordance with law. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to settle the retrial benefits of the petitioner from due date in accordance with law within three months from today, failing which, interest @ 9% per annum shall also be payable. 10. The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 20th June, 2011. Lsp*