IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1343 of 2007 1. Urmila Devi, W/o Late Ram Kishore Mahto 2. Deelip Mahto, son of late Ram Kishore Mahto 3. Kamlesh Mahto, son of late Ram Kishore Mahto 4. Awadhesh Mahto, son of late Ram Kishore Mahto All R/o village- Railanarayan, P.S. Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur. …….Petitioners. Versus 1. The Union of India, through the General Manager (N.F. Railway, Katihar). 2. The General Manager (Personal), N.F. Railway, Katihar. 3. The Senior Divisional Railway Manager (Personal), Katihar. 4. The Divisional Manager, Railway (Personal), Katihar. ……Respondents. ----------- 08- 29.07.2011 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.11.2006, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No.637 of 2005 (Ram Kishore Mahto Vs. the Union of India and others), whereby the original application preferred by the original writ petitioner has been dismissed, and the order of the authorities directing recovery of the amount for working beyond his age of superannuation, has been upheld. It is relevant to state that the original writ petitioner, namely, Ram Kishore Mhato, 2 died during the pendency of the present proceeding, and his heirs have been substituted in his place. 3. It appears to us that the original petitioner had joined the services of the Indian Railways on 12.2.1966. His service book, his seniority list, his application for advance for provident fund, and other documents recorded 1.12.1943 as his date of birth. However, there was an interpolation in the service book, and 1.12.1943 had been converted to 31.10.1944, without any authentication. It was on such interpolation that the original petitioner has managed to continue beyond his date of superannuation counted as per 1.12.1943. In other words, he continued 11 months in excess. This could be detected when his superannuation benefits were being calculated. In that view of the matter, the respondent authorities came to the conclusion that 1.12.1943 was his date of birth, and 31.10.1944 has to be discarded. Therefore, it was ordered that salary for the excess period of stay has to be recovered. The learned Tribunal has discussed the matter and has upheld the impugned order. 4. In view of the narration of facts indicated hereinabove, and in view of the discussion in the order of 3 the learned Tribunal, we are of the view that the authorities had passed an appropriate order which should not be interfered with. The original applicant was guilty of interpolation in the service records. 5. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.) S.K.Pathak/