JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. The case is listed peremptorily today. Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has sent his illness slip today. It appears from the order sheet that on 4.7.2005 the case was directed to be listed after a month as none of the learned Counsel for the parties was present from either side. The case was thereafter listed on 21.10.2005, i.e., almost after 2 1/2 months. On that day Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, had sent his illness slip and the case was directed to be listed after six weeks. The case was thereafter listed on 2.2.2006 and on that day the Court after noting that the matter pertains to the dispute regarding date of birth directed the case to be listed on 13.2.2006. By order dated 5.4.2005 three weeks time was granted for filing counter affidavit arid one week's time was granted for filing rejoinder affidavit. By order dated 17.5.2005 two weeks' further time was granted for filing counter affidavit, which was ultimately filed on 8.7.2005, but rejoinder affidavit has not yet been filed even after more than seven months of filing of the counter affidavit. Thereafter the case is listed today peremptorily. No further adjournment is being granted on the illness slip oi Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava in the background of the case.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the office of District Manager Silo, Meerut Road, Hapur on 1.1.1994 on compassionate ground. It is claimed that at relevant time the petitioner was posted as an Assistant Labourer in the office of the Assistant Manager (Labour Cell), Food Corporation of India, Partapur, District Meerut. It is alleged that the petitioner all of a sudden came to know for the first time in the month of December 2004 that she was going to retire on 6.4.2005 on the basis of a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut dated 7.4.2005.
4. On coming to know about her retirement the petitioner submitted a representation to the Assistant District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Partapur, District Meerut, inter alia, that she never appeared before the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut with regard to obtain his age certificate. She also represented to the Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 20.3.2005 and vide letter dated 23.3.2005 she also wrote another application to the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Hapur District Ghaziabad that she never appeared before the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut for determination of her age, yet she has been retired on 6.4.2005 by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office Silo, Meerut Road, Hapur District Ghaziabad. In response to her letter/representation dated 9.1.2005, respondent No. 5 by means of a letter dated 7.3.2005 informing the petitioner that according to the Bio-data register the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut had certified her age to be 50 years on 7.4.1995.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had concealed material facts and has not come with clean hands before the Court. It is stated that in fact the petitioner was working in the depot as an ancillary labourer prior to 1.1.1994 under the mate system, i.e., as a substantive substitute on contract system. The petitioner was neither appointed as a regular employee nor as an employee on compassionate ground but was upgraded under the direct payment system under circular dated 5.12.1994. It is further stated that after the medical examination of the petitioner and scrutiny of her documents, her age was found by the doctors to be 50 years on 7.4.1995 on the basis of medical certificates issued by the then Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. It is lastly urged that the petitioner has rightly been retired and she represented for change in her date of birth after she retired from service on the basis of Class V passed certificate which has been appended as Annexure 7 to the writ petition.
6. The law is well settled that the date of birth cannot be changed in the service record at the fag end of service. In the instant case the petitioner has already retired from service. There is no denial to the averments made in the counter affidavit as rejoinder affidavit has not been filed. In the circumstances the petitioner has no case on merits.
7. For the reasons stated above and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court this writ petition is dismissed. No Order as to costs.