IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8564 of 2010 1. BRAHMADEO SINGH S/O LATE JAI MANGAL SINGH R/O VILL.- PIYAH, P.S. SONAHAN, DISTT.- KAIMUR (BHABHUA) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE D.I.G. (PERSONNEL), BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE D.I.G., SHAHABAD RANGE, DEHRI 5. S.P., ROHTAS 6. A.G., BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 3 28.03.2011 The stand of the petitioner is that only when he received notice of attainment of his age of superannuation on 31.12.2007, vide Annexure-1, he came to know that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded in the service book as 01.01.1948. Accordingly, he immediately protested, even before his superannuation, along with his Matriculation certificate issued from the Board which showed that his date of birth was 21.09.1948. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his certificate was sent by the office of the S.P., Rohtas to the Bihar School Examination Board and the Board, after verification, reported by letter dated 14.12.2007, vide Annexure-5, that his date of birth was recorded in the records of the Board as 21.09.1948. He also submits that 2 since this report from the Board was received prior to the alleged date of superannuation of the petitioner the respondents ought to have allowed him to continue for approximately eight months more in service. He also submits that a similar verification was made in respect of one Waliullah Khan, a Sub-Inspector of Police, and on the basis of the verification report from the Board, the S.P., Rohtas issued orders dated 27.12.2007, contained in his order no.3697/2007, vide Annexure-7, allowing the said Waliullah Khan to continue in service for another seven months. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner was identical to the case of the said Waliullah Khan, the respondents ought to have allowed the petitioner also to continue for another eight months. He also submits that the petitioner had passed the Matriculation examination before his appointment as Constable and, therefore, there was no reason for the petitioner to give a wrong date of birth at the time of his appointment. He submits that the recording of the date of birth in the service book was merely a slip of pen or error in writing by 3 the person concerned which remained undetected till the petitioner was given the said notice. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case. The stand of the respondents is that during his entire service period, petitioner never filed any application for correction of the date of birth in his service book and only few months prior to his date of superannuation, he filed application for correction of the date of birth and for allowing him to continue in service for approximately eight months more which was legally not fit to be considered. Legally the submission of learned counsel for the respondents and the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit are correct. This Court has never entertained a plea of a Government servant in respect of error in his date of birth recorded in his service book at the fag end of his service career. It has been acknowledged in the judgments of this Court that any correction in entries of the service book is permissible to be sought for only within 10 years of joining of service and not beyond. However, 4 in this case petitioner has placed an example of an identical case before this Court in which at the fag end of service career, on protest, the certificate was got verified and, on the basis of the said verification report from the Board, the employee was allowed to continue for seven months more. That was equitable approach by the respondents and correct. But the question is, if the case of the petitioner was identical to the case of the said employee, namely, Waliullah Khan, why the same equitable approach was not applied in the case of the petitioner also. The executive functionaries, in all executive functions also are required to keep in mind the principles of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are expected to pass identical orders in identical matters. Any act of discrimination, without any rationale or without any intelligible differentia, becomes violative of Article 14 and fit to be quashed on that score alone. In this case prima facie petitioner has made out the case of violation of Article 14. In the circumstances, the writ 5 application of the petitioner is allowed and the S.P., Rohtas is directed to consider the case of the petitioner with the same yardstick as he considered the case of Waliullah Khan and pass appropriate orders. Since the petitioner has now crossed the age of his superannuation even counting his age from 21.09.1948 the petitioner will only be entitled to his salary of the period and consequential benefits under post retirement entitlements. The S.P., Rohtas must pass orders in this regard within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)