3 BEFQRE 'SIE STATE MKIHISTRATIVE TBiroHAL. B&IPBR (M.P.) o.a. HO. APPLICABT Dr« Raasharaa I»al s/o» Late Shri IrP.Tripathl, aged about 61 years, Retired Clvil surgeea Con-Chief Hosyltal superiBteadeht Sardar Patel Hospital» Bilaspar* VBRSITS !!iS« i^ RESPONBESTS ;— 1. State of M.P« tbBDUgh the Princalpal secretary PabUc Healtb and Fanlly Welfgre, Vallateh Efaawan, aiopal.lf.P. 2. OBirissioner, Ptibllc Health and Family Welfare» Satpuda Bttawan* Bhopal* B«P. 3. Dlrector» Pabllc Health and ^aially Welfare, satpaGfaa AaWan, ^opal, M.P* 4* iTeint Direetor, Treasuty Acoounts afld Pensiea, Bilaspar, H.P. APPLXCATIOH UHDER SSfcTIOH 19 OF AI]HIHISTaa'HEyE-TRIB@S&£ ACT* BT 1. 2. 3. K^e aad address s As stated Above* ef &pplieant< Baae aad Address » As stated Above* of Bespondents» Particulars ®fereler against <AiA tbe apptication is naele s (i) ©rderlto» i (il) Dat® •• 8 *» •• 6/ ^ r^ f.' /• l':-" ^w. w ffil: •~~l .^<^IU-.^ .^^gis ['^.•':^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH : BiLASPUR ^ PETiTIGNER s/RIT PETiTION (S1 N0. 3248 OF 2005 n Lal RESPONDENTS li.aie ui "•V. ners Sinate Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Aanihotri Present:- Shri M.K. Dubey,. Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER(ORAU (Passsd on this 23r° day of i'Viarch, 2010) 1; By this petition, the petitioner seeks a directi respondent authorities for grant of retiral benefits extension period of his sen/ice. 2. The facts, in nutsheil, which are germans for disposai of the case, are that the petltioner was communieated an order datec 18-5-1997 (Annexure - P/2) whereby he was directed to retire from service on attaining the'age ot' superannuation 'w.e.f. 31-5-1997 on the basis of takina his date of blrth as on as 3-5-1939. 3. Being aggpeved by the aforessid order dated 18-5-1997 (Annexure - P.'2), before the respondent authorities and requested for correction of his date of birth as 3-1-1940. On account of pendency of representation the retirement of the Detitioner was stayed by ^ - „ .. ^ order dated 31-5-1997 (Annexure - P/3). However, on consideration of his represeniation, the correction of date of blrth was rejected QR 17-10-1997 (Annexure - A/'6) by the State it»taG^nii;((iw•:t'^sst,srssssws,sf-^sss^esvs ^a 5. "'"-^. 2 ofMadhya Pradesh (as it then was). Thereafter, one more representation was preferred by the petitioner to the Principal Secretary, Department of Public Health & Family Welfare, Government of. Madhya Pradesh on 18-12-1997 (Annexure - A/7). In the meantime, the service of the petitioner was extended for a period of one year i.e. up to 31-5-1998, as is evident from Annexure - A/10. Thus, this retiral benefrts treating the extending period, as quaiifying service for computation of pension and other retiral 4. Shri Dubey, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner, submjtsthat the petitioner is entitied to retiral benefits including the extension period i.e. titl 31-5-1998, as there is no break in the service period ofthe petitioner. Onthe other hand, iearned counsei appearing for the State submlts that after consideration, the representation of the petitioner with regard to correction of his date of blrth was rejected and the date of retiremert of the petitionec as 31 -5-1997 was confirmed. In this petition, the petifioner has not chailenged the question of correctness of his date of Therefore, the petitioner is entitied to the retiral to 31 -5-1997 and he is not entitled to anv retiral senefits only up benefits for the amed counsel appearin and the documents for the parties, extension period. Having heard perused the pieadings and the documents app is apparent that the ageof retirement was not challenged, as Gowri V" Mli the date of birth as shown in the ietter dated 18-5-1997 (Annexure - P/2) was not amended and the same was treated as correct date of birth. Accordingly, the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 17-10-1997 (Annexure - A/6). Though, in the meantime, the petitioner v/as allowed to work for one more year on account of extension of period, but the age of retirement remained the same. Had there been ar amendment or change in ths date of bi the position would have been different. was 3-5-1939, contention of the petitioner that since the relieving order dated 18-5-1997 was not given effect to, the petitioner was permitted to work.for one more year Is noticed to be rejected, as the same confer any right on the petitioner. At the most, he is benefit of salarv and allowances for the extension not more than fhat. The computation of pension and other retirat benefits has to be years on attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of dateofbirth i.e. 3-5-1939. 7. For the reasons mentioried hereinabove, dismissed. No order asto costs. it petition is s^% f. ililit