IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7309 of 2008. Decided on: 11.11.2010. __________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and ors. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G.with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved since he was retired on 31.8.2000 on the basis of Annexure A-1, order. In the preliminary submission of reply, it is stated as follows:- “That the appointment and retirement of Govt. employee is normal administrative feature. One is opt to be retired from Govt. Service after attaining the age of Superannuation and for which no cause of action ever accrues to the applicant. In this case the applicant had joined his duty in the respondent department on 21.11.1995 (F.N.) (w.e.f. 1.1.94) and at the time of his joining his date of birth was Aug. 5 1940 as per the record produced by the applicant and accordingly necessary entry was made in the service book of the applicant which was signed/left hand thumb and finger impression by the applicant and also signed by the Assistant Engineer, Panhrukhi, Sub-Division HPPWD, Panchrukhi. The Photocopies of the same is annexed herewith as Annexure R- 2 I. Keeping in view, the date of birth of the applicant, respondent No.3 has issued the order of retirement of the applicant from Govt. Service w.e.f. 31.8.2000 after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years vide office order No. PWD-EN-EA-II/2000-5791-93 dated 4.8.2000 and accordingly he was retired by the A.E. Pancrukhi, Sub-Division, HPPWD, Panchrukhi vide his office letter No. PSD/E-3/2k-1405-06 dated 31.8.2000. Thus the claim of the applicant is not maintainable. Hence the present petition is required to be dismissed.” 2. According to the petitioner, as per school leaving certificate, his date of birth should have been taken as 4.2.1942 and his retirement should have been only in February 2002. But, as stated in the reply, it is the petitioner, who had produced earlier medical certificate, on the basis of which, the entry with regard to his date of birth was made in the service book. He did not produce the school leaving certificate at the time of entering into service. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a Class-IV employee, he may be permitted to make a representation before the first respondent. 3. In view of above submission, it is made clear that in the event of petitioner’s filing the representation before the first respondent, the matter will be duly considered by the first respondent taking also note of the facts that the medical certificate is only the approximation of the age, whereas the exact date is entered in the school leaving certificate and that the petitioner is an illiterate Class-IV employee. It is also made clear that the case of the petitioner will be examined in light of the decision of this court in Sarab Dayal versus State of H.P. subject to its finality and appropriate relief shall also be granted to the petitioner counting his daily wage service for the purpose of pension and other consequential benefits. 3 4. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) November 11, 2010 Judge. (cr/pankaj)