1 2026:CGHC:15463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3429 of 2018 1 - Surajram Yadav S/o Shri Sadaram Yadav Aged About 56 Years R/o Annapurna Para, Kanker, Post Kanker, Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Previously Known As Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board) Through The Executive Director, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Director (Sanchar/ Sandharan) Cspdcl, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer (Sanchar/ Sandharan) Cspdcl. Kanker Division, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Account Officer, Cspdcl, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “1. That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call the record of the petitioner. 2. That the Hon'ble Court may be kind -2- enough to issue any Writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions and to quash the impugned order Annexure P-1. 3. That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents as deemed fit 2. Mr. Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Helper Grade-3 under the respondent authorities on 06.01.1983. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Helper Grade -1 and thereafter Assistant Line Man Grade-1. Mr. Kotcha, would contend that a show cause notice was issued on 23.05.2008 and reply was sought for of the alleged charge of illegal change in the date of birth in the service record. He would submit that the petitioner filed reply to show cause notice wherein, he categorically stated that his correct date of birth is 07.04.1962, whereas, in his service record, it is wrongly entered as 07.04.1956. Mr. Kotecha would contend that the Disciplinary Authority appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and after full-fledged inquiry, report was submitted on 08.08.2013 wherein, it was held that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 07.04.1962 and said finding was forwarded to the authorities to take necessary steps accordingly. Mr. Kotecha would submit that despite finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer, respondent No.2 issued an order on 29.12.2017 reflecting his date of birth 07.04.1956 and date of retirement 30.04.2018. He would submit that the order dated 29.12.2017 is bad in law. It is also argued by Mr. Kotecha that the petitioner has already got retired from services pursuant to order dated 3 29.12.2017, therefore, he is entitled to receive all benefits attached to the post till actual date of his retirement i.e. 30.04.2024. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose submissions. He would submit that the petitioner himself manipulated service record and changed his date of birth and therefore, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. Mr. Nair would submit that the petitioner has filed this petition at the fag end of his service career, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It appears that the dispute with regard to date of birth of the petitioner surfaced in the year 2008. An article of charge was issued and the inquiry was conducted wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner manipulated his date of birth from 07.04.1956 to 07.04.1962. The inquiry Officer vide its report dated 08.08.2013 found the correct date of birth of the petitioner 07.04.1962 and further forwarded the document to the authorities. 6. The Inquiry report was within the knowledge of the respondent authorities, however, respondent No.2 passed the order dated 29.12.2017. It is not a case where the petitioner approached this Court at the verge of retirement for correction of his date of birth rather it is a case where the respondent authorities themselves came to conclusion that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 07.04.1962 and thus, the age of retirement of the petitioner after attaining age of 62 years would be 30.04.2024. Accordingly, order -4- passed by respondent No.2 dated 29.12.2017 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. As the petitioner has already got retired from services, he shall be entitled for all benefits attached to the post from 30.04.2018 to 30.04.2024. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha