Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mazda Begum vs General Manager N C Rly on 13 January, 2023
O.A. No.1477/2017
(Reserved on 11.1.2023)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
Original Application No. 1477/2017
Pronounced on 13th of January, 2023.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Mazda Begum wife of late Mohd. Ujjair aged abut 50 years resident
of Bunglow No.13-G, Loco North Colony, Loco Gate, Kanpur Nagar
Applicant
By Advocate: Sri Syed Taj Mohd. Rizvi
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central
Railway, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad Division, Allahabad.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central
Railway, Allahabad Division, Allahabad.
4. Divisional Medical Officer, North Central Railway,
Allahabad Division, Allahabad.
Respondent
By Advocate: Sri Shivaji Singh
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) The present O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:-
i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/letter dated 18.3.2017 issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer.
ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give effect the continuation of the services and allow her continue the service till60 years on 31.10.2006 as per the religious documents (NIkah) certificate of date of birth issued by the Registrar Birth and Death Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and many applications and affidavits in regard to correct of date of birth within 2 years as per the rules along with the arrears of payment.
iii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction at this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv) Award the costs of the O.A. in favour of the applicant.1 O.A. No.1477/2017
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed on compassionate ground as class IV employee. Due to mistake, she has mentioned her date of birth as 16.10.1956 instead of 16.10.1966. Mother of the applicant submitted an affidavit on 26.8.2005 to correct the date of birth as 16.10.1966 along with Nikahnama dated 13.6.1982. Applicant submitted application dated 18.4.2006 for correction of date of birth as 16.10.1966 in place of 16.10.1965 along with marriage certificate (Nikahnama ) and certificate issued by the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat dated 18.3.2003 and certificate of date of birth issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death Govt. of U.P. Chief Medical Officer forwarded recommendation letter to Divisional Medical Officer (Law) for correcting the date of birth as 16.10.1966. On 31.10.2016, applicant retired from services. Applicant again submitted a representation on 24.12.2016 but respondents vide impugned order dated 8.3.2017 rejected the claim of the applicant.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondents, stating therein that Smt.Mazda Begum, after the death of her husband was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Safai Karmi vide appointment letter dated 25.4.2003. The applicant superannuated on 31.10.2016 as per documents submitted by her at the time of her appointment and at the time of superannuation. In the appointment letter dated 25.4.2003, the date of birth of the applicant was mentioned as 16.10.1956. Mother of the applicant is claiming that she has submitted an affidavit in the year 2005 for changing her date of birth as 16.10.1966 but at the time of superannuation in the year 2016, she submitted an affidavit dated 29.9.2016 and Aadhar Card in which she again mentioned her date of birth as 16.10.1956. It is further stated that applicant had filed an affidavit dated 26.8.2005 of her mother and in para 3 of the said affidavit the mother of the applicant had deposed that she did not get prepared any document regarding date of birth of her daughter (Smt. Mazda Begum) accordingly she did not have any document regarding date of birth of her daughter. It is further stated that in her affidavit dated 24.9.2016 and Aadhar card submitted by the applicant at the time of retirement, she has disclosed her date of birth as 16.10.1956.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted Supplementary affidavit on 8.3.2018 annexing therewith Aadhar card and birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Sultanpur on 2 O.A. No.1477/2017 5.11.1966 in which date of birth of applicant is mentioned as 16.10.1966.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
6. From perusal of record, it is evident that in the appointment letter issued on 25.4.2003, Parivar Registrar issued by Chief Health Inspector, Kanpur, Affidavit submitted by the applicant, Aadhar Card , Pan Card and affidavit dated 24.9.2016 submitted at the time of retirement and in some other documents annexed along with CR-3 to the counter Reply shows her date of birth as 16.10.1956. It is surprising that in an affidavit submitted by the applicant on 24.9.2016, she is annexing aadhar card, Pan Card and Bank pass book in which her date of birth is mentioned as 16.10.1956 but along with Supplementary Affidavit filed by the applicant on 8.3.2018 annexing Aadhar card in which her date of birth is mentioned as 16.10.1966. Department has retired the applicant considering the documents submitted by her at the time of appointment and at the time of retirement. In both documents, her date of birth is mentioned as 16.10.1956. Now she is claiming that her date of birth may be corrected as per Nikahnama whereas in Aadhar Card, Pan Card and affidavit submitted at the time of appointment and at the time of retirement her date of birth is mentioned as 16.10.1956. Now she has been retired treating her date of birth as 16.10.1956.
7. 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."
8. It is also evident from the record that documents submitted during the pendency of the O.A. annexed along with the Supplementary Affidavit are not genuine documents. Applicant herself in an affidavit dated 24.9.2016 discloses her date of birth as 16.10.1956. Submission of learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that fact disclosed in the aforesaid affidavit is not correct as the applicant is an illiterate lady. Her signature was only 3 O.A. No.1477/2017 obtained but the submission raised on behalf of the applicant is not acceptable. Perusal of the aforesaid documents also reveals that applicant has made signature on the affidavit and other documents. This fact reflects that she was literate lady. It is surprising that the important fact was being mentioned in the affidavit regarding her date of birth which will affect her carrier but nothing was objected by her at the time of making signature. Thus on this count also, submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is not acceptable. Department has rightly retired the applicant on the basis of documents submitted by her at the time of joining the service. Extract of Birth and Death is also not a genuine document as Sr. No. on which it was issued has not been disclosed on it. Issuing authority is the Gram Pradhan, whereas death and birth certificates are prepared by Panchayat Secretary. Thus, no reliance can be placed upon this document also. 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.
9. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
(Justice Om Prakash-VII) Member (J) HLS/-
4