JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Prem Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
2. The petitioner was in the service of respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. He was initially appointed on a class IV post on 8.2.1966 and was thereafter confirmed in service on 1.9.1970. Admittedly in the service book of the petitioner maintained by the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad his date of birth has been entered as 21.1.1948 and it has also been indicated that the age of superannuation of the petitioner would 21.1.2008. On 29.11.2004 the petitioner had received an order passed by Respondent No. 3 (who, according to the petitioner, is not even the appointing authority of the petitioner) wherein it has been stated that on the basis of a medical certificate which had been produced by the petitioner, he would be attaining the age of 60 years, on 7.2.2O05 and thus would retire on the