JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.5.1993 and the consequential order dated 1.6.1993 passed by respondent No. 1, Annexures-9 and 10 to the writ petition respectively.
3. The petitioner was appointed initially as a Supervisor in the Cooperative Department on 13.11.1957 and thereafter he was promoted on 23.5.1992 as Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative) in the pay-scale of Rs. 1.350-2,200.
4. Petitioner's date of birth, according to the entry made in the service book is 15.1.1937, but in the promotion order his date was incorrectly recorded as 15.1.1936. It is further stated that the Block Development Officer by his letter dated 4.4.1989 informed the petitioner that his date of birth is 15.1.1937.
5. Respondent No. 3 circulated a notice indicating the date of retirement of various, employees including the petitioner vide letter dated 25.5.1992, mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.1.1936 instead of 15.1.1937 and the date of retirement as 31.1.1994 instead of 31.1.1995.
6. According to the petitioner, he made representation on 7.8.1992 and after enquiry. Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies (Admn.) has submitted his report on 12.2.1993. He further contended that the Deputy Registrar found that correct date of birth of the petitioner was 15.1.1937 and on that basis he should be retired on 31.1.1995.
7. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that nothing was done in regard to correction of date of birth of the petitioner fn his service record, hence a representation was made on 20.5.1993 before the Dy. Registrar (Admn.) Co-operative for correction of his date of birth, but the correction has not been made in the service record. The services of the petitioner have been terminated with effect from 31.1.1990 with retrospective effect by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 31.5.1993. Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Thereafter an order was passed by respondent No. 1 on 1.6.1993 directing that no further salary should be paid to the petitioner. It has been submitted by the petitioner that he possessed High School certificate but it has been lost. No duplicate High School certificate had been obtained and filed in support of his date of birth.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been wrongly retired by the impugned order. A perusal of the order dated 31.5.1993, Annexure-9 to the writ petition shows that the report submitted by the Deputy Registrar is not reliable as it does not state as to how he got the order dated 12.2.1993 and from whom. He also found that the petitioner appeared in the High School Examination in 1951 from T. K. High School. The petitioner filed an application for his employment on 8.7.1956, copy of which is on the record in which he has noted his date of birth as 15.1.1932 when he was sent on deputation to Kissan Sahkari Sewa Samiti, Ghazipur, district Fatehpur, 15.1.1932 was already recorded in his service book, hence his date of birth was 15.1.1932. The Deputy Registrar has also recorded the fact that the petitioner has been claiming for change in his date of birth under a systematic conspiracy, with the connivance of the employees of his office and also mentioned in his report that correct date of birth of the petitioner was 15.1.1932 and he ought to have retired on 31.1.1990, but he was allowed to continue in service on the basis of wrong entry for about three years. He further directed that the service rendered by the petitioner after retirement could not be counted for purposes of gratuity, etc. and the amount paid to the petitioner in three years should be adjusted in his gratuity. The said order was confirmed by the Registrar vide his order dated 1.6.1993.
9. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that termination of service of the petitioner with retrospective effect is illegal and the order for adjustment of pay given to him during this period from the gratuity of the petitioner is illegal and against the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was given to him before passing the order dated 1.6.1993 and as such it amounts to punishment and may result in severe consequences.
10. I have considered the said point. It is true that the termination order cannot be passed with retrospective effect. It is illegal. The entries on the service-book are binding on the department. Since in the service-book, date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 15.1.1936, the Deputy Registrar has no right to change the same as 30.1.1932 without any show cause notice or without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this regard.
11. In my opinion, the petitioner should have been retired on attaining the age of 58 years from the date of birth mentioned in the service book and the benefit of continuity in service beyond that period cannot be given to him. Without giving any notice or opportunity to show cause, the order of adjustment of extra pay earned by the petitioner after date of retirement according to the service record, is illegal.
12. I, therefore, set aside the orders dated 31.5.1993 and 1.6.1993 to the extent that the petitioner would be deemed to have retired on attaining the age of 58 years, according to the entries of service book and he will refund the excess amount paid to him after the date of retirement, can be recovered from him. The excess service rendered by the petitioner will not be counted for purposes of computing gratuity and other retiremental benefits.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.