IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9972 of 2009 RAM SEVAK PANDIT Son of Bhaso Pandit, Resident of Village- Garhi Maheshpur, P.O. & P.S. Piri Bazar, District- Lakhisarai. . . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna, 2. The Chief Engineer, North Bihar, Irrigation Department, 3. The Executive Engineer Irrigation Division, Birpur, District- Supaul, 4. Sub-Divisional Officer (Assistant Engineer) Main Canal Sub-Division, Bhimnagar, Balua, District- Supaul. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 2/ 19.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the contents of the notice bearing letter no. 466 dated 18.04.2009 wherein with reference to the entries made in the service book he has been directed to superannuate with effect from 31.12.2009 with further direction to submit his pension papers. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when he joined the service Medical certificate was called for and he submitted medical certificate dated 07.07.1971 (Annexure-2) wherefrom it will appear that on the date of the certificate i.e. 07.07.1971 petitioner was 19 years old. On the basis of the certificate entries were made in the service book, and his date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1952. Later interpolation appears to have been made in the service book and when the petitioner learnt about the interpolation, he represented before the Executive Engineer under whom he was posted at Birpur, by filing representation dated 04.08.2005 which is contained in Annexure4 to this application. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the authorities have not considered the representation dated 04.08.2005 and have issued impugned notice dated 18.04.2009 (Annexure-5), which is only to prejudice his case as also to prepone his date of - 2 - retirement without going into the contention raised by the petitioner in his representation. 3. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this court deems it expedient to direct the Executive Engineer to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.08.2005, as contained in Annexure-4 to this application, in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of its receipt. It is, however, made clear that if the representation of the petitioner dated 04.08.2005 is considered and allowed, the authorities shall pass appropriate orders recalling the notice dated 18.04.2009. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (V. N. Sinha, J.)