IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 417 of 2006 (S/S) (Old No. 37092 of 1997) Murari S/o Het Ram Agricultural Labour Kshetra Haldi, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar – 263 145. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. The Vice Chancellor G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar – 263 145. 2. Sansthaoana Adhikari G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar. 3. Assistant Director (Krishi Karya) Madhya Kshetra, Haldi, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar. 4. The Chief General Manager Farm, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar. 5. The Block Superintendent ‘J’ Khand, Haldi, Pantnagar. 6. The Officer Incharge D.D.O.C. / Haldi, Pantnagar –263 145. ...…………. Respondents Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner 2 has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 02.09.1997, passed by the respondent University, relieving the petitioner treating him to have been superannuated w.e.f. 31.10.1992. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Class IV employee, who is working as agricultural labour with the respondent University. It is stated in the writ petition that he is an illiterate person. It is stated that the petitioner was engaged as daily wage labour in the year 1970, and in the year 1987, his services were regularized. It is further stated that petitioner’s year of birth is 1942. On being asked by the University, the petitioner produced the certificate from a Medical Officer, who assessed his age to be 45 years, on 18.05.1987 i.e. the date of regularization, but the respondents treated his date of birth as 01.11.1932, which is alleged to be a wrong date. 4) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent University it has been stated that in respect of employees of the respondent University, Employees Provident Fund record is maintained. As per said record the petitioner has completed age of 60 years on 31.10.1992. It is further stated that there was no illegality on the part of the respondents to treat the petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 31.10.1992. 3 5) This Court vide its order dated 04.11.2009, directed the respondent University to produce the original service record of the employee (petitioner). 6) Today, the original service record of the petitioner is produced before this Court, which shows that the petitioner has mentioned his age on 01.04.1987, as 54 years 6 months and 19 days. The record further discloses that on 13.10.1970, when the petitioner was engaged as casual labour, his age was found to have been recorded as 38 years. 7) Having examined the original service record, this Court does not find any substance in the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed. 8) The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the observation that the payment, if any, made for the work done by the petitioner before 1997, shall not be recovered. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 20, 2009. H. Negi