IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.253 of 2008 Shambhu Nath Singh, son of late Basudeo Mistri, resident of Mohallah-Gardanibagh, near Yarpur, P.S. Gardanibagh, Patna, district:-Patna .. Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar represented through Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Nirman Bhawan Campus, Patna 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) Nirman Bhawan Campus, Patna 3. The Superintending Engineer, PHED, Patna Circle, Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna 4. The Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D., Patna West, Rajbansinagar, Patna .. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr Medini Kant Jha, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, S.C.-24 :- Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate, A.C. to S.C.-24 5 18.05.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.03.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7844 of 2006. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has upheld the premature retirement of the petitioner basing on the date of birth i.e. 25.01.1945. The case of the appellant is that his date of birth was recorded in the service book as 25.01.1948, but the said service book was subsequently, lost and therefore, the second service book was reconstructed on 27.08.1990(Annexure-4 to the writ petition) wherein the date of birth of the petitioner- appellant herein was recorded as 25.01.1945. On 2 that basis, order dated 29.01.2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) has been passed for his premature retirement with effect from 31.01.2003. It is also contended that as per Annexure-4/a to the writ petition, in the School Leaving Certificate his date of birth was recorded as 25.01.1948 and in the G.P.F. Account paper submitted by respondents on 07.09.1982 to the office of Accountant General, his date of birth was recorded as 25.01.1948. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that on the basis of some interpolation in the reconstructed service book the date of birth is mentioned as 25.01.1945 and the petitioner-appellant herein was asked to retire on 31.01.2003 on the basis of incorrect date of birth hence, he has filed the writ petition. But the learned Single has chosen to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that there were disputed question of facts involved. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the date of birth recorded in the office records including service book was 25.01.1948 and also in the G.P.F. Account paper submitted by respondents on 07.09.1982 to the office of 3 Accountant General his date of birth was recorded as 25.01.1948. Hence, the appellant is entitled to continue in service up to 31.01.2008 basing on extension of service from 58 to 60 years. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the statement of the appellant vehemently by contending that in the seniority list also the date of birth of the appellant was shown as 25.01.1945, accordingly he was directed to retire from service w.e.f. 31.01.2003. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that seniority list was subsequently corrected (Annexure -7 to the writ petition), and hence, there cannot be a dispute with regard to the date of birth as entered in the service record which has also been approved by letter No. 2910 dated 20.05.2004 issued by Joint Commissioner, Account Administration, Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department (Annexure-18 to the writ petition). We also had an occasion to go through the entire records placed before us and material available in the writ petition as also 4 in the L.P.A. The fact remains that the service book was reconstructed on 27.08.1990 recording date of birth as 25.01.1948 but however there seems to be wrong entry. But the date of birth which was entered in the seniority list was also corrected vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The letter No. 2910 dated 20.05.2004 issued by Joint Commissioner, Account Administration, Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) goes to show that the date of birth of the petitioner-appellant herein has been entered in the P.F. Account was 25.01.1948. At this juncture, we have to observe that the order of premature retirement has been passed without verifying the records. We are of the opinion that the date of birth of the appellant as recorded in the service book which was supported by letter No. 2910 dated 20.05.2004 issued by Joint Commissioner, (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) has to be read as 25.01.1948. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to be superannuated after completion of 58 years i.e. on 31.01.2008. But, however, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner is entitled to 5 continue at the age of 60 years after the rules come into force in the year 2006 extending the service from 58 years to 60 years. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the appellant was directed to retire at the age of 58 years taking the date of birth as 28.01.1945 but the question of his entitlement to continue in service till the age of 60 years can be left open which is to be decided by the competent authority in view of the rules incorporated in the year 2006. In this particular case, we see some force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. As the appellant is entitled to continue up to 31.01.2006 but however his continuation upto 60 years would be subject to the decision of competent authority in pursuance to the rules incorporated in the year 2006. We also make it clear that that the appellant is also entitled to all arrears of salary with all consequential benefits taking note of the date of birth as 25.01.1948. We also make it clear if the competent authority feels that the appellant is entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years. All consequential benefits shall also be paid to 6 the appellant as per rules. Under the above circumstances, the order of learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Ashwini (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)