Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 49050 of 2014 Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Shukla,Ghanshyam Pandey,K.Kaushik,Ulajhan Singh Bind Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Ghanshyam Pandey and Ms. R.U. Rinki Devi holding brief of Sri Ulajhan Singh Bind, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pass an order on the representation moved by petitioner on 28.6.2013 as directed by the Regional Secretary Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office Meerut.
ii). Issue a writ order or direction to the respondents to consider and take effective action on the representation made by petitioner which is still pending before him.
iii). ......
iv) "
Instructions were called for vide order dated 12.9.2014, however, till date the same has not been received.
The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 34358 of 2013 (Radhey Shyam vs. State of U.P. and others). The aforesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.6.2013, which is quoted as under:-
"The grievance of the petitioner is that his application for change of his date of birth in the service record is pending. In Service Record his date of birth is recorded as 20.7.1950.
As stated by the petitioner, there was some discrepancy in the educational qualification of the petitioner and his correct date of birth is 20.7.1956. He wants change of his date of birth in his Service Record as 20.7.1956 in place of 20.7.1950.
For the said purpose, if the petitioner has moved an application, he may pursue it without intervention of the Court.
It is a trite law that Court should not interfere in the matter where an employee wants to get his date of birth changed at the fag end of his service.
Accordingly, writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed its opinion on merit of the case."
(emphasis supplied) It is not in dispute that the petitioner has passed high school in the year 1968 and was employed in the institution in question in the year 2001. In the year 2003 he was regularized in the institution and now has, admittedly, retired. It is for the first time in the year 2013 he moved an application seeking correction in his date of birth. When the same was not decided he filed the abovenoted petition, which was disposed of clearly observing therein that the Court should not interfere in the matter where an employee wants to get his date of birth changed at the fag end of his service, however, it was left to the petitioner to pursue the same without intervention of the Court.
Now, again the petitioner is before this Court.
It is not in dispute that the correction in the date of birth is being sought at the fag end of career and now infact the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation.
Under such circumstances and in view of the settled law that such application cannot be entertained at the fag end of career, I do not find any good ground to granted prayer so made in the present petition. In other words, it would, if allowed, amount to issuing a futile writ, hence, as per settled law, cannot be issued.
Present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Lalit Shukla