Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Kunwar Ram vs General Manager, N E Rly on 22 March, 2023
RESERVED ON 17.03.2023.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
Dated: This the 22nd of March 2023
PRESENT:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Original Application No. 330/00185/2018
Ram Kunwar Ram S/o Shri Jhullan Ram, Resident of Village Badhwal Deeh,
(Tikar Naper Post Bhojapur (Varanasi), at present Chandauli Division.
. . . Applicant
By Adv: Shri V.K. Srivastava
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. General Manager (P), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Divisional Rail Manager, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar.
4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Izzat
Nagar.
5. Chief Personal Officer, Izzat Nagar Mandal, Izzat Nagar.
. . .Respondents
By Adv: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
ORDER
The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
"i Issue an order or direction in the suitable nature certiorari to set aside/quash the impugned orders dated 10.03.2008 (which has not been served) order dated 20.01.2015 and 04.03.2016 passed by the respondent Mandal Rail Prabandhak (Karmik), North Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar (Annexure No. A-6 & A-7 to this original application with Compilation No.1).
ii. issue an order or direction in the suitable nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the applicant to continue in service upto 31.08.2017 on the basis of correct date of birth 04.08.1957 as stated/mentioned in the High School Certificate dated 10.06.1977 issued by UP Board, Allahabad.
iii. Issue an order or direction in the suitable nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make the payment of arrears of salary 2 date of retirement 31.8.2017 on the basis of date of birth 04.08.1957 with interest on the delayed payment of arrears of salary and to make the payment of pension after re-fixation of pension as per admissible under rule.
iv. Issue any order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. v. To award the cost of the application to the applicant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Station Master having been selected through Railway Service Commission, Muzaffarpur vide order/letter dated 17.12.1983 and was posted at Jasoda Station. Since the date of appointment, the date of birth of the applicant as per High School certificate was 04.08.1957 but at the time of examination of promotional post, the applicant had inadvertently mentioned his date of birth as 13.04.1957 instead of 04.08.1957. Due to clerical error on the part of the applicant, the wrong entry of date of birth has been mentioned in the service book of the applicant though in his High School certificate, his date of birth has been mentioned as 04.08.1957.
3. In the counter reply, the respondents submitted that the date of birth of the applicant has been filled up by him in 'A' card as 13.04.1957. The same date of birth is also mentioned in his service book which has been approved by the applicant after putting his signature. Respondents further submitted that there is no provision to write the date of birth in the promotional examination. They have contended that Divisional Rail Manager (P) office prepared the final seniority list on 01.4.2002 in which the date of birth of the applicant has been shown as 13.04.1957. They have also contended that the applicant filled up application forms for payment of Provident Fund and he himself mentioned his date of birth 13.04.1957. Since in all service related documents, the applicant has mentioned his date of birth as 13.04.1957, therefore, at this stage, there is no provision to change the date of birth of the applicant.
4. I have heard Shri V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
35. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that appointment letter was issued on 18.01.1984 (Annexure A-2) requiring the applicant the matriculation certificate. Referring to the High School certificate annexed with the OA, it was further argued that applicant's date of birth is shown in the High School certificate as 4.8.1957. Applicant, due to mistake filled his date of birth at the time of examination as 13.04.1957. This fact came to the knowledge of the applicant at the time of retirement, immediately he moved an application before the authority concerned to correct his date of birth as disclosed in the High School certificate. It was further argued that the applicant is not changing his date of birth but he wants only to correct his date of birth mentioned in the service record. It is further argued that limitation provided for correction of date of birth will not be applicable in the present case as the applicant is not changing his date of birth and only prayer is made to correct the mistake occurred in the service record. Thus referring to the entire documents, prayer is made to allow the application.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the counter affidavit states that on number of occasions, applicant disclosed his date of birth as 13.04.1957 and this fact is also disclosed in the service book and on that basis applicant was retired on superannuation. Applicant joined services in 1984. Limitation for correction of date of birth is only 5 years. Present O A has been filed at the fag end of service career. This cannot be allowed. Applicant cannot take benefits of his fault. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the case of The General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Avinash Kumar Tiwari reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 124.
7. I have considered the rival submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The issue involved in this O.A. is with regard to correction of date of birth of the applicant. From perusal of records, it is evident that in the 'A' card and service book, the date of birth of the applicant has been shown as 13.4.1957, which is approved by the applicant by putting his signature (Annexure A-1 and A-2). In the seniority list prepared by the respondents applicant's name is shown at serial No. 44 and his date of birth is mentioned as 13.04.1957. Applicant cannot make a request for alteration of his date of 4 birth at the fag end of his service career. In the case of Avinash Kumar Tiwari (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"Employees cannot wake up from their slumber after a long time and seek alteration of date of birth towards the fag end of their career".
9. In the case of Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs. M. Manickam and others reported in(2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 245, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that "Change of date of birth in service records, there must be strong, cogent and reliable evidence in support of contention that date of birth entered in service records was wrongly entered by mistake."
10. It is surprising to note that why applicant could not change his date of birth while he was in service. Applicant is a literate Railway servant. It is also not believable that applicant was not aware that his date of birth has wrongly been mentioned in his service period whereas he himself has disclosed the fact in several records. At the fag end of his service career, applicant is not entitled to make a request to change his date of birth. View taken by the Court finds support with the law laid down in the case of State of T.N. Vs. T.V Venugopalan reported in (1194) 6 SCC 302 and State of Orissa Vs. Ramanath Patnaik reported in (1997) 5 SCC 181 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "when the entry was made in the service record and when the employee was in service he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected, any amount of evidence produced subsequently is of no consequence". Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the court is of the opinion that prayer made by the applicant to correct the date of birth is not liable to be accepted and O.A. being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII) Member (J) Manish/-