IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7003 of 2011 RAM BILASH PASWAN, SON OF LATE SARYUG PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-TILAK TAJPUR, P.S. RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ………………………………………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE HOME COMMISSIONER (POLICE), HOME DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR- GENERAL-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TIRHUT RANGE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TIRHUT ZONE, MUZAFFARPUR. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SITAMARHI. 7. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI. 8. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR INCHARGE, SITAMARHI SADAR, SITAMARHI. 9. THE SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, SITAMARHI WEST, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 10. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, RUNNISAIDPUR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ……………………………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Arun Kumar and Hans Lal Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to GA-II. ------------- 2. 25.4.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims that his date of birth has wrongly been entered in the Service Book as 4.1.1952 2 though actually his date of birth is 3.1.1961. It is further submitted that in the appointment letter, which was issued on 3.10.1986, his age has been shown as 25 years. Thus, it is contended that such entry in the Service Book is to be corrected otherwise he will retire prematurally after about eight months. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has stated that the petitioner himself has annexed extract copy of his Service Book in which his date of birth has been entered as 4.1.1952 and that page bears the signature of the petitioner also. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been able to show as to how his correct date of birth is 3.1.1961. However, at the time of hearing of this writ petition, the petitioner has confined his prayer only to the extent that his representation made before the Respondent No.9, the Subdivisional Officer, Sitamarhi West, District-Sitamarhi, as contained in Annexure-‘5’ to the writ petition filed on 11.12.2010, has not been disposed of as yet and, thus, the same be directed to be disposed of. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not raise any objection to the aforesaid submission made on 3 behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the Respondent No.9, the Subdivisional Officer, Sitamarhi West, District-Sitamarhi, that in case the representation as contained in Annexure-‘5’ to the writ petition has been made before him and the same is yet to be disposed of, then he will consider the same on its own merit and in accordance with law and take a decision within three months from today. Such decision taken should also be communicated to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion with regard to the merit of the case of the petitioner. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)