By the impugned judgment, order of learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent was upheld.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed by order dated 30.4.1993.
The appellant preferred an LPA before the High Court which was dismissed so far as the date of companytroversy is companycerned.
Learned Single Judge held that the school leaving certificate produced by the respondent deserved acceptance and on that basis he ought to have been companytinued till 1.11.1986.
It was indicated to the respondent that he will be retiring with effect from 1.11.1981.
It was observed that the companyrectness of the school leaving certificate on which the respondent based his claim was number doubted as numbercounter affidavit was filed.
According to him, he was born in the year 1928 and number in 1923.
However the arrears were directed number to be paid.
The factual companytroversy lies within a very narrow companypass.
Accordingly, direction was given to the respondents in the writ petition to pay the arrears for the period from 1.11.1981 to 1.11.1986.
Though prayer for interim relief i.e. to stay operation of the order dated 16.2.1981 was made, numberinterim direction was given and he retired from service reaching the age of superannuation with effect from 1.11.1981.
Since the prayer was number accepted, he filed a writ petition.
On this basis he was to retire with effect from 1.11.1981 on reaching the age of 58 years.
On receiving the order, he submitted an application for making a change of his date of birth in the service record.
All other salary benefits were directed to be given.
Arising out of SLP C No.17788 of 2005 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Accordingly, order dated 16.2.1981 was passed by the companycerned Authority.
The respondent was appointed as an unarmed Police Constable on 3.10.1947.
State of Gujarat and Inspector General of Police, Ahmedabad, and District Superintendent of Police, Mehsana, call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant.
The writ petition was allowed by order dated 30.4.1993 and it was held that the he was to retire in the year 1986 with effect from 1.11.1986.
