Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2374/2017 of Rajendra Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS on 29 December 2017
of 2017 U.C. Dhyani, J. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Dabral, Standing Counsel for the State. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Delay in filing the same is condoned. Delay condonation application (CLMA No.16981/2017) thus stands disposed of . By means of
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
WPSS No.2374 of 2017
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Dabral, Standing Counsel for the State.
Counter affidavit is taken on record. Delay in filing the same is condoned. Delay condonation application (CLMA No.16981/2017) thus stands disposed of. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the records and quashing the impugned order/notice dated 16.8.2017 (annexure no.6) passed by respondent no.3. certiorari calling the records and quashing the impugned order/notice dated 16.8.2017 (annexure no.6) passed by respondent no.3. (ii)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to correct the date of birth of petitioner in his service record as 08.5.1960 as per the verified school leaving certificate and further to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Beldar along with all consequential benefits. mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to correct the date of birth of petitioner in his service record as 08.5.1960 as per the verified school leaving certificate and further to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Beldar along with all consequential benefits.
Allegedly some interpolations were made in the date of birth of the petitioner, according to whom he was born on 08.5.1960, whereas in the documents, his date of birth was interpolated as 19.8.1957. Now the petitioner has retired, presuming his year of birth to be of 1957, therefore, it is the innocuous prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent nos.3 & 4 be directed to give admitted retiral dues of the petitioner, at an early as possible. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the department shall pay admitted dues to the petitioner within a period of six weeks.
The Court records the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and disposes of the writ petition by directing respondent nos.3 & 4 to pay the admitted retiral dues to the petitioner within a period of six weeks of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Further, it is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that representation of the petitioner regarding overwriting in his date of birth may kindly be directed to be decided by respondent no.2, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.
Such innocuous prayer is worth
accepting.
Respondent no.2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner regarding overwriting in his date of birth, by a reasoned and speaking order, as early as possible, but not later than six weeks of presentation of certified copy of this order along with representation before the said respondent, in accordance with law.
Needless to say that the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner soon thereafter.
[All Pending applications also stand disposed of].
A.kaur
(U.C. Dhyani, J.)
29.12.2017