Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Surjit Singh Sahota vs M/O Environment And Forests on 25 April, 2024
1- O.A. No. 707/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/707/2021
Pronounced on:25.04.2024
Reserved on: 03.04.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
Surjit Singh Sahota, IFS (Group-A), aged about 56 years, son of Sh.
Balbir Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, Amritsar, resident of village and
post office Jandiala (Patti Dhuni Ki), Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Naresh Kumar for Sh. K.S. Dadwal)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry
of Environment Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj. New Delhi-110003
2. Chief Secretary, to Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel,
Civil Secretariat, Sector 1, Chandigarh 160001
3. Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary to Government of
Punjab, Department of Forest and Wildlife Preservation, Chandigarh
Punjab Mini Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh - 160009,
4. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HOFF), Department of Forest
and Wildlife Preservation, Punjab, Forest Complex, Sector 68, SAS
Nagar Mohali 160062.
5. Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, Phase VIII, SAS Nagar,
Mohali 160062
6. Principal, Republic High School Jandiala District Jalandhar 144033.
... .Respondents
By Advocate:Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC for R-1
Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG (Pb.) for R- 2 to 4
Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalia for R-5
None for R-6)
2- O.A. No. 707/2021
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:-
"(i) To issue direction to the respondents to correct date of birth of the applicant as 23.12.1964 instead of 10.05.1962.
(ii) To set aside the advice dated 16.01.2013 (Annexure A-
7), given by respondent no. 2."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined the Forests Department on 07.03.1987 as Forest Ranger and at present he is working as Division Officer at Amritsar. The applicant pleaded that his date of birth is 23.12.1964, whereas in the service record his date of birth was mentioned as 10.05.1962 on the basis of his matriculation certificate issued by the Punjab State Education Board (hereinafter referred to as PSEB). On noticing this error in his matriculation certificate, the applicant approached the authorities of PSEB to rectify the mistake. The applicant submitted representation dated 08.10.2012 (Annexure A-6) to respondent no. 4 for issuance of „No Objection Certificate‟ for getting correction of date of birth in matriculation certificate by the PSEB clearly mentioning therein, that in primary and middle school certificate as well as per the record his correct date of birth is 23.12.1964, however, the PSEB while issuing the matriculation certificate has wrongly mentioned it as 10.05.1962. The request of the applicant was not acceded to by the respondents vide communication dated 04.01.2013 and 31.01.2013 (Annexure A-7 colly) on the ground 3- O.A. No. 707/2021 that any correction in date of birth is permissible only within two years of joining the department. However, the PSEB issued a duplicate certificate dated 22.01.2013 (Annexure A-4) wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 23.12.1964. The applicant got served legal notice dated 24.04.2021 (Annexure A-8) upon the respondents for correction of date of birth in the service record on the basis of middle class certificate and the duplicate certificate issued by the PSEB with correct date of birth as 23.12.1964. The respondents did not respond to the legal notice.
3. The contention of the applicant is that as per the record i.e. primary school certificate, middle class certificate (Annexure A-2) and the admission register (Annexure A-1), the date of birth of the applicant is 23.12.1964 which was wrongly mentioned on the matriculation certificate as 10.05.1962. Since it was a clerical mistake, the applicant got it corrected from the PSEB which issued a duplicate certificate dated 22.01.2013 with correct date of birth i.e. 23.12.1964. It is also contended that rejection of applicant‟s claim on the ground of limitation by the respondents is not in consonance with the Rule 2.5 of Punjab Civil Service rules 1994 and Rule 7.3 of Chapter 7 of PF Rules as no period of limitation has been prescribed in the Rules. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Sat Parkash (RSA No. 1035/2001 decided on 25.07.2022), State of Punjab and Another Vs. Megh Raj Garg (RSA No. 901/1996 decided on 06.09.2002) and a judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Kaur Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others, 2011 (2) SCR 534. 4- O.A. No. 707/2021
4. The respondents no. 2 to 4 have filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. It has been stated therein that the application of the applicant is not within limitation, as per Rule 2.5, Note 3, Vol 1, Part 1, the correction of date of birth can be made within two years from the date of joining the service. However, the applicant brought to the notice of the respondent regarding the correction of his date of birth even after the lapse of 35 years from the date of joining.
5. The respondent no. 5 (the PSEB) has filed short reply stating therein that the school, where the applicant was enrolled sent the date of birth as 10.05.1962 and based upon the said data, the matriculation certificated was issued to the applicant. However, upon perusal of the Gazette Notification pertaining to result of Middle Standard Examination declared in March 1978, it came to the notice that the applicant had appeared vide roll no. 322109 and the date of the birth of the applicant was mentioned as 23.12.1964, but in result published in the gazette for matriculation ,it is shown as 10.05.1962. Therefore, on the basis of the result published in the Gazette for Middle standard, the necessary correction in the date of birth was made vide order dated 16.01.2013 and a certificate was issued on 22.01.2013.
6. The Respondent No. 6 filed reply confirming that in the entire school record concerning the applicant i.e. the admission register and the middle standard examination, the date of birth of the applicant is mentioned as 23.12.1964 and while sending the form to PSEB, the correct date of birth i.e. 23.12.1964 was sent in all the documents. The said date of birth i.e. 10.05.1962 is not as per the record maintained in the school. It seemed that some clerical mistake has been committed 5- O.A. No. 707/2021 and when the school certificate was issued, the employee, who filled up the column of date of birth has wrongly mentioned the date of birth as 10.05.1962 especially when in Punjab School Education Board records, the date of birth of the applicant is 23.12.1964.
7. The applicant has filed additional affidavit along with Annexures A-8 and A-9 which are the minutes of meeting of PSEB held on 02.08.2012 and a newspaper cutting dated 12.09.2012. It has been stated that the matter for grant of special chance to the students to get correction in date of birth as well as in the name of parents taken up in board‟s meeting held on 02.08.2012 and even approval was also granted to the same. The news in this regard was published in the newspaper „Ajit‟ on 12.09.2012, wherein it was clearly mentioned that as per the decision taken in the meeting of the Director, the condition of time limit of 10 years shall be deemed to be waived to give this opportunity.
8. The respondents have placed on reliance on a number of judgments including Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s judgments in the cases of Karnataka rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 5720 of 2021 decided on 21.09.2021), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh (Civil Appeal No. 1009/2020 decided on 05.02.2020), Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kantilal Hematram Pandya, 1995 AIR 1349 and Narinder Kaur Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others, 2011 (2) SCT 484, Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Vs. Megh Raj Garg and another, 2010 (6) SCC 482, judgments of Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of State of 6- O.A. No. 707/2021 Punjab Vs. Sat Parkash (RSA No. 1035/2001 decided on 25.07.2002), State of Punjab and Another Vs. Megh Raj Garg, 2003 (1) SCT 292
9. I have gone through the pleadings and considered the rival contention of both sides.
10. The admitted facts of the case are that the applicant‟s date of birth has been recorded as 10.05.1962 on the basis of Matriculation certificate at the time of joining the department on 07.03.1987. The applicant, on 08.10.2012, made an application to the respondent no. 4 informing that his date of birth has wrongly been mentioned as 10.05.1962 instead of 23.12.1964 in the Matriculation certificate by the Education Department for which he made a request to the PSEB for correction and therefore, a „No Objection Certificate‟ be issued to him. The request of the applicant has not been consented to vide letter dated 31.01.2013 by Respondent No. 4, on the basis of advice dated 04.01.2013 given by the respondent no. 2. However, the PSEB after verifying the necessary record of admission registers, certificate of middle standard and gazette notifications, corrected applicant‟s date of birth and issued a duplicate Matriculation Certificate on 22.01.2013, mentioning therein the corrected date of birth i.e. 23.12.1964. The applicant issued a legal notice dated 22.04.2021 upon the respondents to correct the date of birth in the service record on the basis of the documentary evidence in support of date of birth. But, the respondents did not reply to the legal notice. In the written statement, the respondents no. 1 to 4 have come up with the plea that as per the Punjab Civil Service rules 2.5, Note 3 Vol 1, part 1, the correction of 7- O.A. No. 707/2021 date of birth can be made within two years from the date of joining the service.
11. The prime argument of the respondents is with regard to delay in applying for correction of date of birth in the service record. The authenticity of the supporting documents has not been disputed by the respondents. From the documents placed on record, it is seen that the error occurred on the part of the Respondent No. 5 i.e. PSEB while mentioning the date of birth on the certificate. To get the clarity on the issue, the PSEB and the Principal of the School, where from the applicant passed his matriculation examination, were allowed to be arrayed as respondents no. 5 and 6 in the case. The respondent no. 6 admitted the fact that in the school records concerning the applicant e.g. the middle standard examination and the admission register the date of birth of the applicant has been mentioned as 23.12.1964 and also while sending the documents to the PSEB the date of birth has been mentioned as 23.12.1964 and nowhere in the record the alleged date of birth 10.05.1962 finds mention. The Respondent no. 5 i.e. the PSEB also by filing short reply admitted that an error has occurred while mentioning the date of birth on the Matriculation Certificate and after verifying the middle standard certificate, gazette notification and other relevant documents, the date of birth has been corrected as 23.12.1964 and a duplicate certificate too has been issued on 22.01.2013. Thus, the authenticity of the certificate has been re-affirmed. With regard to delay, it is noticed that the error of date of birth occurred in the Matriculation Certificate and it was to be corrected on the part of the PSEB only, of course on the request of the applicant. It seems that the 8- O.A. No. 707/2021 applicant found it impossible to get correction in the Matriculation Certificate issued in the year 1980 until the PSEB published its decision taken in the meeting of the Director that condition of time limit of 10 years shall be deemed to be waived, to give a golden chance to the students to get correction in date of birth, in the newspaper dated 12.09.2012. The applicant grabbed that golden opportunity and applied for correction in date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate and his bonafide request was accepted and accordingly the necessary correction has duly been made, after following the proper procedure. If an opportunity has been granted by the State Government by relaxing the time period to the students to get correction in the date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate, the consequential benefit thereof cannot be ignored by the Government on the ground of delay by simply issuing an advice and not passing any cogent, reasonable and speaking order denying the benefit.
12. The respondents have heavily relied upon Rule 2.5, Note 3, Vol 1 Part 1 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, reproduced hereunder, to deny the claim on the ground of limitation. It has been contended that as per the Rule, the correction in the date of birth can be made only within two years of entering into service.
"1. In regard to the date of birth, a declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government service shall, as against the government employee in question, be deemed to be conclusive. The employees already in the service of the Government of Punjab on the date of coming into force of the Punjab Civil Services (First Amendment) Rules, Volume-I, Part-I, 1994, may apply for the change of date of birth within a period of two years from the coming into force of these rules on 9- O.A. No. 707/2021 the basis of confirmatory documentary evidence such as Matriculation Certificate or Municipal birth Certificate, etc. No request for the change of the date of birth shall be entertained after the expiry of the said period of two years. Government, however, reserves the right to make a correction in the record age of a Government employee at any time against the interests of the Government employees when it is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book or in the History of service of a Gazetted Government employee is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded with the object that the Government employee may derive some unfair advantage therefrom.
2. When a Government employee, within the period allowed, makes an application for the correction of his date of birth as recorded a special enquiry should be held to ascertain his correct age and reference should be made to all available sources of information such as Certified Copies of entries in the municipal birth register, University or School age Certificate, Janam Patris or horoscopes. It should, however, the remembered that it is entirely discretionary on the part of the authority to refuse or grant such application and no alteration should be allowed unless it has satisfactorily been proved that the date of birth as originally given by the applicant was a bonafide mistake and that he has derived no unfair advantage therefrom."
13. This aspect of the matter has been discussed by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in an identical case of Sat Parkash (supra) wherein the contention of delay based on Rule 2.5 of the aforesaid Rules has been thrashed while holding as under:-
"7. Even otherwise, a perusal of Annexure-A attached to Chapter VII of the Punjab Financial Rules, Volume-I, as corrected upto 31.3.1982, shows that the notification contained therein was omitted vide P.G. F.D. Notification No. 193-FR-68/68615, dated 10- O.A. No. 707/2021 11.1.1968. Thus, it would become apparent that rules as they stand today, do not contemplate any period within which the application for correction of date of birth on the ground of clerical error can be made. In the learned Courts below as also before this court, the arguments have been addressed on the presumption that Note-1 to Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-
1, Part-1, 1994, which are para materia to Rule 7.3 to Chapter VII of the Punjab Financial Rules, Volume-1, contains a limitation of two years for making the application for correction of date of birth.
It, however, appears that Annexure-A attached to Chapter VII of the Punjab Financial Rules, Volume-I, having been omitted, no period of limitation can be read into either under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-1, 1994 or Rule 7.3 to Chapter VII of the Punjab Financial Rules, Volume-1."
In view of the findings of the Hon‟ble High Court noticed hereinabove, the hurdle of limitation should not affect the case of the applicant for correction in the change of birth. Moreover, each and every case should be examined and considered based on its facts. In the present case, there was no fault on the part of the applicant to get the wrong date entered in the service record. The whole fault occurred on the part of the PSEB, which compensated by giving golden chance to the students to get correction in date of birth and by issuance of duplicate certificate with correct date of birth but the benefit thereof could not be enjoyed by the applicant due to the reason of advice by the respondent no. 2, which has been communicated to the applicant without passing any order by the Competent authority. However, the respondent no. 5, rectifying its 11- O.A. No. 707/2021 mistake, has issued the duplicate certificate on 22.01.2013 having the corrected date of birth i.e. 23.12.1964. The case of the applicant should have been considered in view of its peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and admission of mistake on behalf of Respondents No. 5 and
6.
14. From the documents, it is seen that vide Annexure A-7, the respondent no. 2, while reproducing a para of the judgment in the case of Sukhwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab of Hon‟ble Supreme Court regarding delay in applying for change of correction of date of birth, shown its ability to consider/admit the proposal and return the file. Reference to the judgment has casually been made without mentioning the case number or its citation in the impugned order (Annexure A-7). Nor the copy of judgment has been placed on record for perusal by the respondents to defend the impugned advice, which shows that Competent Authority did not examine and decide the issue in a proper manner. I am of the view that the case of the applicant has not been considered on the basis of its facts and circumstances and the request of the applicant has not been acceded to only on the basis of Advice dated 04.01.2013 (Annexure A-7). The impugned order dated 16.01.2013, endorsed to applicant on 31.01.2013, (Annexure A-7) is quashed and set aside being sketchy and non-speaking. The respondents have not even replied to the legal notice served by the applicant.
15. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to give an opportunity to the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to consider afresh the case of the applicant for correction in date of birth and take an independent view on the basis of 12- O.A. No. 707/2021 facts and circumstances by passing a detailed reasoned and speaking order, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (J) „mw‟