JUDGMENT A.K. Yog, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Raj Pal Singh, petitioner, an employee of U.P. State Electricity Board was posted in Hardua Ganj Thermal Power Project, District Aligarh. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Executive Engineer Koyala Sanchalan Executive Engineer, Koyala Sanchalan Khand, Hardua Ganj Tapiya Pariyojana, Kasimpur, District Aligarh and Maha Prabhandhak, Harduaganj Termal Project, Kasimpur, Aligarh) are his superiors having control on him. Petitioner wants order dated 7-11-1992 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) to be quashed, whereby he was informed that he had superannuated after completing age of 60 years under relevant Rules and stands retired by treating his date of birth as 1-10-1932 as recorded in his service book.
3. Petitioner, however, contends that he cannot be retired inasmuch as correct date of birth is 15-6-1942 as per School leaving certificate, which he had submitted along with representation for correction in his service book regarding his date of birth (Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit of the respondents).
4. In order to appreciate the controversy of the present case it will be useful to refer to paragraphs 5 to 8 of the Counter Affidavit, wherein it is stated that petitioner had, in the past, made attempt at different times between the year 1980 and 1984 for correction of his date of birth on another ground (horoscop) but failed. Petitioner wanted to get his date of birth changed in his service book on the basis of an alleged horoscope (See Annexure CA-3). Request of the petitioner was specifically truned down vide order dated November 20, 1984 (Annexure CA-3 to the Counter Affidavit).
5. It is interesting to note that petitioner did not disclose in the present writ petition factum of his earlier representation (regarding correction of his date of birth) already having been rejected in the past.
6. Petitioner, however, relies upon certain orders issued on the basis of representation of the petitioner for correction of date of birth, i.e., orders passed by Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer concerned (Annexure Nos. 3 and 4 to the writ petition and Annexure No. CA-4 to 7 to the Counter Affidavit).
7. Counter Affidavit reveals that on receiving complaints from some person. Officer concerned became aware of the rejection of the representation in the past in the year 1984. On having come to know of the entire facts, being aware of correct position, order for correction of age in service book (passed in ignorance of correct facts) was cancelled vide order dated 6th November, 1992 (Annexure CA-9 to the Counter Affidavit).
8. In the light of the above order service book was again corrected, indicating original date of birth i.e., 1-10-1932 (instead of 15-6-1942).
9. Contesting Respondents have filed copy of relevant Rules as Annexure CA-8 to the Counter Affidavit. Rule 2 for convenience sake reproduced below :
"2. The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his haying passed the High School or equivalent examination or where a Government servant has not passed any such examinations aforesaid the date of birth or the age recorded in his Service Book at the time of his entry into Government service, shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to his service, including eligibility of promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever."
10. The above rules leave no scope for correction of date of birth in the service book. Petitioner signed his service book which contained entry regarding 'age'. He did not object. It is not his case that he did not know about entry in service book.
11. Contesting Respondents placed reliance upon the decision, dated 17-9-1993 passed by Division Bench consisting Hon'ble V.K. Khanna and Hon'ble G.P. Mathur, JJ, in Special Appeal No. 383 of 1993 Adhishashi Abhiyanta Electricity, Rihand and Hydel Div., U.P. State Electricity Board, Allahabad and Anr. v. Shitla Prasad.
12. Relevant extract of the judgment is being reproduced :
"The second reason given by learned Single Judge is that retiring the petitioner on the basis of an original entry without giving him . opportunity of hearing is against the principle of natural justice. The third reasons is that once an entry regarding date of birth has been corrected in the service book in accordance with rules, then the same cannot be ignored without giving opportunity to the employee concerned. We have shown above that entry regarding the date of birth had been changed without any authority of law. In fact the Executive Engineer who made alteration in 1987 had no such authority under the relevant rules.............
Therefore, the entry "25-7-1936" made in the service book in the year 1987 was not only illegal but was also without any authority of law and was non-est. Such an entry could not be taken notice of and had to be ignored. It is not a case where a legally permissible change has been affected. In these circumstances, the employees were fully within their right to ignore the altered entry and proceed on the basis of entry originally made in the service book and the question of giving any notice or opportunity of hearing could not arise. Such a notice would have been necessary if the alteration in the date of birth was permissible in law and the1 said alteration had been done in accordance with any prescribed procedure. However, since in the present case, the law completely prohibits any alteration, the altered entry was liable to be ignored and no prior notice was required to be given to the employee concerned. With profound respects to the learned Single Judge we are unable to concur with the view taken by him as he has directed that the controversy about the employee's date of birth be settled after ignoring Service Rules learned Single Judge has not held that the Rules are ultra vires and in these circumstances, we fail to understand as to how the Rules cannot be ignored while deciding the controversy about the date of birth of an employee."
13. The present case is certainly not on better footing. In the present case in hand as noted above, petitioner had earlier lost when his representation on the same subject was rejected in the year 1984. Petitioner did not rely upon it though he had obtained said certificate dated 26-7-1980 (Annexure CA-1 to the Counter Affidavit). Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise same controversy time and again. Annexure CA-3 to Counter Affidavit shows that he made claim, which was rejected in 1984 on the basis of horoscope only. Petitioner seems to have not challenged the said order dated 20-11-1984 (Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit). Petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of any order having been passed by some officer being ignorant of the earlier rejection of representation.
14. Petitioner shall be discharged and relieved forthwith from the post and he shall handover charge in accordance with law, if any, subject to condition that petitioner's pension shall now be computed and paid treating him as having retired on the basis of his date of birth mentioned in service book initially (i.e.. 1-10-1932).
15. It is clarified that any amount of salary/emoluments-received by the petitioner under ad-interim order of this Court in this Writ Petition, shall be duly adjusted towards pension amount.
16. In view of the above, I find no merit in present writ petition. Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.