IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 90 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.9.2009. Jagjit Singh ......Appellant Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, Head Office 21, Rajindra Place, New Delhi, through its Chairman and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: None. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by learned Single Judge questioning his retirement at the age of 60 years as per the date of birth originally recorded. 2. The appellant was enrolled in the Army on 9.3.1953 giving his date of birth as 9.3.1935. After 21 years of service, he was discharged on 9.3.1974. Thereafter, he joined the service of the respondent-Bank. He produced School Leaving Certificate recording his date of birth as 2.7.1937. The respondent-Bank, however, took the stand that the date of birth recorded in the Army record could not be allowed to be changed. It was pointed out that if date of birth of the appellant was 9.3.1937, he could not have been found eligible to join army on 9.3. 1953 as he had not attained the age of 18 years. Having taken an advantage by declaring his age to be 18 years before the army authorities in the year 1953, the appellant could not claim that his date of birth was 2.7.1937. Reliance was placed on judgments of the LPA No. 90 of 2009 2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. V. S.M.Jadhav and another AIR 2001 SC 1666 and G.M.Bharat Coking Coal; Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and others AIR 2001 SC 72.. 3. The appellant filed review petition on which order was modified directing the bank not to recover the salary paid under the interim order for the disputed period of two years. However, the appellant was held not entitled to be given retiral benefits for the said period. The appeal of the bank against the said order in LPA No. 54 of 2008 (Punjab & Sind Bank and another v. Jagjit Singh) has been dismissed by separate order passed today. 4. The main contention put forward in this appeal is that genuine date of birth of the appellant is 2.7.1937 as recorded in the school leaving certificate. The said date was recorded in the record of the bank. This contention has been rejected by learned Single Judge on the ground that the appellant represented before the army authorities in the year 1953 that he was 18 on the basis of his date of birth being 1935. In such a situation, plea of the appellant could not be accepted. 5. No ground is thus made out to interfere with order of the Learned Single Judge. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) September 15, 2009 JUDGE raghav