CWP 13195/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.13195/2008 Shankar Lal Versus Hindustan Copper Ltd. & (2) Ors. Date of Order ::: 24/11//08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Praveen Balwada, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.13/10/08 (Ann.13) whereby respondents after taking note of material on record finally observed that date of birth of petitioner according to their record is 21/09/1945 – on the basis whereof, payment of his retiral dues were computed and paid to him upon seeking voluntary retirement. Petitioner was initially appointed as Miner vide order dt.08/09/1971. While holding post of Drifter Operator, he sought voluntary retirement under Scheme, 2002, which was accepted and given effect to from 31/03/02 (afternoon). He alleged his date of birth as 21/09/49 and his submission was that as per his date of birth recorded in his service book and so also the recommendation made by the Committee constituted by respondents for the purpose, his retiral dues were not properly computed as per recorded date of birth. Earlier, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP-5690/08. Taking note of submissions, CWP 13195/08 //2// writ petition was disposed of vide order dt. 15/07/08 directing respondents to consider representation of petitioner after affording him opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order; in compliance whereof respondents have now passed a detailed order dt.13/10/08 (Ann.13) impugned in instant petition. Counsel submits that petitioner's date of birth as recorded in his service record was 21/09/1949 and was also recommended by Committee constituted by respondents for the purpose; in such circumstances, there was no justification for respondents to still change and treat date of birth as 21/09/1945 prejudicial to his interest as a consequence whereof, he has been deprived of further five years service benefits besides retiral dues admissible under law. I have heard Counsel and with his assistance, examined material on record. Respondents have recorded detailed reasons in the order impugned having been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and ultimately observed that at the time when he initially joined service on 20/09/1971, he stated his age as 26 years and in the absence of documentary proof and date of birth was recorded as 21/09/1945 while Form being duly signed by him. At the same time, he was sent for medical CWP 13195/08 //3// examination and his age was assessed as 25 years thereby his date of birth came nearer to the date declared and recorded in “B” form as 21/09/45, as was at the time of initial entry into service. But in mid of seventies, again his date of birth was inadvertently recorded based on his age of 26 years as entered into service record at the time of initial entry, without adding 4 years' further service rendered by him by that time; and accordingly respondents after taking note of material on record observed that retirement dues paid to petitioner with reference to his date of birth as recorded in B form viz. 21/09/1945 did not call for any review or modification vide order impugned. As regards recommendations made by Committee, the competent authority observed that it was completely missing from the Committee while making its recommendations that at the time of initial entry into service on 21/09/1971, his age was disclosed as 26 years, and the same was recorded even after 5 years in mid of seventies (1975) while preparing service record, which normally could not have been possible and thus it was an inadvertent error and taking note whereof, finally the competent authority observed that his age as initially recorded at the time of entry into service being 26 years accordingly which was CWP 13195/08 //4// 21/09/45 was recorded as date of birth – on the basis whereof, he was entitled to retiral benefits and his claim for change in date of birth was rejected by respondents vide order impugned. As regards date of birth to which Counsel put much emphasis of 21/09/49, there is no documentary evidence available on record to support. His only contention is that once it was recorded as 21.09/1949, respondents were not authorized to change it prejudicial to his interest. Suffice it to say that no change is given effect to. It is only a restoration of which was originally entered into at the time of his initial entry into service and it was acted upon after affording opportunity of hearing and certainly an error can always be corrected after due compliance of principles of natural justice in accordance with law. Even otherwise also, so far as date of birth is concerned, in absence of material on record, these are disputed questions of fact, which can not be gone into in limited jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/13195CW08-2411DOB.doc