Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ayodhya Prasad vs Union Of India on 19 December, 2016
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1 WP No. 15044/2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
WP No. 15044/2016
Ayodhya Prasad
Vs.
Union of India & 3 Others
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.C.Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGEMENT
(19/12/2016) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J :-
1. This petition has been filed under article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 23.12.2015 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in Review application no.
200/0045/2015 where by the review of order dated 06.11.2015 passed in Original Application No. 200/00924/2015 was rejected.
2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was an employee of the Central Railway and retired on 31.10.2015. His actual date of birth is 01.02.1958 and the same is mentioned in his PAN Card, Adhar Card and pay slip for the month of July, 2015. The respondents ignoring the above 2 WP No. 15044/2016 documents held that his correct date of birth was 15.10.1955 therefore, he was retired on 31.10.2015. The petitioner filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking correction of his date of birth in his service record and consequently postponement of his superannuation to 31.01.2018.
3. Learned Tribunal found that in casual labour card (Annexure A/1) his date of birth is mentioned as 15.10.1955 which was struck out and in its place 01.02.1958 has been entered without any authentication. During his medical examination at the time of joining service in the medical report (Annexure A/4) dated 11.10.1983, his age was mentioned as "approximately 28 years". At that point of time, the petitioner had not raised any objection. After completion of 25 years of service when he was due for retirement, he started making efforts for correction of his date of birth.
4. As per Para 224(iii) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume-I (Annexure R/1), the date of birth may be altered only on satisfactory grounds. Learned Tribunal held that documents submitted by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth are contradictory and doubtful. On the above grounds, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondents. Since, no justification to interfere with the 3 WP No. 15044/2016 decision of the respondents regarding rejection of his representation pertaining to change of date of birth and consequent date of superannuation was found and therefore, the original application was dismissed vide order dated 06.11.2015.
5. Against the dismissal, the petitioner filed a review petition. The Tribunal, finding no error apparent on the face of the records which were considered by the respondents while rejecting petitioner's claim, dismissed the review petition vide order dated 23.12.2015. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging above orders on the ground that his date of birth was corrected in Annexure P/4 and P/5 after proper enquiry and the same is mentioned as 01.02.1958 in his service record also (Annexure P/8), pay slip for the month of July, 2015 issued by the department. But in Annexure P/8 his date of birth is shown as 15.10.1955 and this change was carried out without any notice to him and without any enquiry. It is further contended that his date of birth was corrected in Annexure P/4, P/5 and P/6 in the year 1984 which were in the custody of the respondents and some of them were issued by the Railway Authorities. The Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioner moved an application for correction of his date of birth after 25 years of his service. 4 WP No. 15044/2016
6. On the above grounds, the petitioner prayed for quashing the impugned orders and restoration of his date of birth as 01.02.1958. He also prayed to permit his service to be continued till 31.01.2018.
7. The petitioner submitted school leaving certificate in the month of December 1983 for correction of his date of birth. He joined service as casual labor in the Engineering Department of Western Central Railway at New Katni on 30.03.1976. Petitioner's first medical examination was conducted on 11.10.1983. In the medical report, age of the petitioner is 28 years. At that time the petitioner did not raise any objection which implies that the petitioner was borne in 1955. As per the respondents, the petitioner has himself in his own handwriting made changes in his service record. It is material that casual labor service card was in his possession (Annexure A/1) and does not contain any counter signature of competent officer. No explanation has been given by the petitioner in this regard. In annexure A/2 substantial striking out of the date of birth of 15.10.1955 to make it 01.02.1958 bearing seal and signature of PWI was denied by respondent. Petitioner has no authority to himself change important particulars like date of birth. In Annexure P/16, he himself mentioned his date of birth as 15.10.1955. In the case of petitioner, Indian Railway 5 WP No. 15044/2016 Establishment Code Volume-I Para 225 is applicable which reads as under :
"(1) Every person, on entering railway service, shall declare his date of birth which shall not differ from any declaration expressed or implied for any public purpose before entering railway service. In the case of literate staff, the date of birth shall be entered in the record of service in the railway servants own hand handwriting. In the case of illiterate staff, the declared date of birth shall be recorded by a Senior Railway servant and witnessed by another railway servant.
(2) A person who is not able to declare his age should not be appointed to railway service. (3) (a) When a person entering service is unable to give his date of birth but gives his age, he should be assumed to have completed the stated age on the date of attestation, e.g. if a person enters service on 1 st January, 1980 and if on the that date his age was stated to be 18, his date of birth should be taken as 1 st January, 1962.
(b) When the year or year and month of birth are known but not the exact date, the 1 st July or 16 th of that month, respectively, shall be treated as the date of birth.
(4) The date of birth as recorded in accordance with these rules shall be held to be binding and no alteration of such date shall ordinarily be permitted subsequently. It shall however, be open to the President in the case of a Group A & B railway servant, and a General Manager in the case of Group C & D railway servant to cause the date of birth to be altered.
(i) Where in his opinion it had been falsely stated by the railway servant to obtain an advantage otherwise in admissible, provided that such alteration shall not result in the railway servant being retained in service longer than if the alteration had not been made, or
(ii) Where, in the case of illiterate staff, the General Manager is satisfied that a clerical error has occurred, or
(iii) Where a satisfactory explanation (which should not be entertained after completion of the probation 6 WP No. 15044/2016 period, or three years service, whichever is earlier) of the circumstances in which the wrong date came to be entered is furnished by the railway servant concerned, together with the statement of any previous attempts made to have the record amended."
8. In view of the above, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable that Shri Tyagi, the then PWI had authority to correct his date of birth in annexure P/5 which was mentioned in annexure P/3. The respondents have further stated that inspite of all their efforts, the handwriting and signature of the Shri Tyagi could not be verified.
9. Considering the above facts, the Tribunal found that when the petitioner was due for his retirement, he started filing applications for amendment of his date of birth. As per the provisions of Para 224(iii) of Indian Railway Establishment Code (Volume-I) the date of birth as recorded may be altered only where satisfactory explanation which should not be entered after completion of the probation period or 3 years of service whichever is earlier. Petitioner started clamor for amending his date of birth after more than 25 years of joining the railway service. Since the petitioner has already retired on 31.10.2015, he does not get any benefit of the order of the Tribunal passed in Shoukat Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors. In OA No. 701/1989.
7 WP No. 15044/2016
10. Having regard to the aforesaid position of law, in our considered view, no fault can be found in the order of the Tribunal.
11. Thus, no case for interference in the order passed by the Tribunal is made out. The petition is therefore dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (SMT. ANJULI PALO) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE vidya