IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20510 of 2010 Surendra Prasad Mishra son of late Mani Mishra R/o village- Dhanauti, P.S. Charpokhari, Dist. Bhojpur ( Ara) ---Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, National Project Construction Corporation, Ltd. Plot no. 67-68, Sector-25, Faridabad ( Hariyana) 2. The Chief Manager (HR) N.P.C.C., Ltd. Corporate Office, Plot no. 67- 68, Sector-25, Faridabad (Hariyana). 3. The Manager (P & A). N.P.C.C. Ltd. Plot no. 67-68, Sector-25, Faridabad ( Hariyana) 4. The Trustee Secretary, N.P.C.C. Ltd. Plot no. 67-68, Sector-25, Faridabad (Hariyana). 5. The Zonal Manager, N.P.C.C. Ltd. Bihar Zone 15, I.A.S. Colony, Kidwaipuri, Patna-1. 6. The Project Manager, N.P.C.C. Ltd. PMGSY Works, Nalanda, Vijay Laxmi Complex 2nd Floor, Flat no. 01, Sohsarai, Biharsharif, Nalanda, Pin-803118 ---Respondents. ----------- 05. 28.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 06.1.2010, passed by the Manager (P&A), National Project Construction Corporation Limited ( for short „the Corporation‟) whereby he has been made to retire w.e.f. 31.01.2010 on attaining age of superannuation (58years) treating his date of birth as 10.01.1952. It is case of the petitioner that he started his career in the Corporation in the year 1977 as Helper at Totaldih Unit, Dehri. At the time of his joining the said assignment, he had furnished school leaving certificate in support of his date of Birth which recorded his date of Birth as 10.01.1957. During the service period a service record was prepared by the respondents in which his date of birth has been recorded as 10.01.1957. In the Bio-data which was subsequently prepared by the 2 respondents his date of birth similarly recorded as 10.01.1957. The respondents all on a sudden came out with impugned communication dated 06.01.2010 (Annexure-3) whereby he was directed to superannuate w.e.f. 31.01.2010 on attaining age of superannuation. It is stand of the petitioner that his date of birth recorded as 10.01.1957 has been changed without providing any opportunity of hearing to him which is violative of the rules of Natural Justice. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a Judgement of this Court in the case of (Kashi Ram vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.) since reported in 1998(1) PLJR 828. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that petitioner started his career on muster roll. Subsequently he was regularized in the service of Corporation. At the time of his regularization a history sheet respecting the petitioner was prepared in which his date of birth was recorded as 10.01.1952 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). It is further the stand of the respondents that based on the aforesaid history sheet a seniority list of such employee was circulated in the year 1993 vide letter no. 501086/WE/Sen/93 dated 16.04.1993 whereby the date of birth of the workmen establishment such as petitioner was /were also circulated. The seniority list also contained the date of birth of petitioner as 10.01.1952. The petitioner did not raise any objection thereto. Since official records indicated his date of birth as 10.01.1952 the impugned communication was issued whereby the petitioner was made to retire on attaining age of 58 years of age w.e.f. 31.1.2010 .As about the documents contained in Annexure-2, service card and Bio Data is/are concerned, a 3 positive stand has been taken by the respondents in para 12 of the counter affidavit that the said service card was never prepared by the corporation and it is not authenticated by any official of the corporation. Similarly the Bio- Data is unilateral document as it was never created by Corporation or authenticated by the Corporation or any official thereof. Learned counsel further submits that under Standing Order of the Corporation the age of workman as recorded with the Corporation at the time of his employment is not to be altered. Clause 4( c) of the Standing Order has been quoted in para 9 of the counter affidavit which reads as under:- “9. The age of a workman as recorded with the corporation at the time of his employment shall not thereafter be altered by the workman.” In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seniority list was not made available to the petitioner at any point of time. It has been pointed out that the history sheet prepared and maintained by the Corporation (Annexure A to counter affidavit) there appears to be interpolation so far as the date of retirement of petitioner is concerned. It is stated that 31.01.2010 was altered as 31.01.2012. Learned counsel for the respondents explained that the Corporation had earlier resolved to move the appropriate department of the Central Government for enhancing the age of retirement and decision in this regard was taken at the Corporation level which was not approved by the Central Government. In that situation 31.01.2010 was altered to read as 31.01.2012. There is thus no change in the stand of the respondent Corporation that service record indicate 10.01.1952 as the date of Birth of petitioner which does not warrant modification in view of clause 4 ( c) of 4 the Standing Order. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. In order to demonstrate that the date of birth of petitioner is 10.01.1957 petitioner has relied on Annexures 2. It appears therefrom that those documents are not signed either by petitioner or any official of the respondent Corporation. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to rely on those documents in order to hold that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.01.1957. It is to be kept in mind that the petitioner was initially engaged on muster roll basis and after serving for some time in the said status/capacity he was regularized in the service of the Corporation. The submission of the petitioner that the change in his date of birth has been effected by the respondents without providing any opportunity to him, in my view, is not sustainable. The respondents have come out with a case that right from the very beginning his date of birth was recorded in the service records as 10.01.1952, and relying thereon the petitioner has been made to retire. In that factual scenario reliance placed on the ratio laid down in 1998(1) PLJR 828 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. I have already indicated that the respondents in their counter affidavit have categorically denied the authenticity of the documents attached as Annexure-2 ( Service card and Bio Data). In my view, the stand taken by the respondents in retiring the petitioner on attaining age of superannuation (58 years) treating his date of birth as 10.01.1952 relying on the standing order cannot be faulted. Any attempt to change the said date of birth at the fag end would not be permissible in law. For all these reasons, this Court finds no merit in this 5 application. Dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )