Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
V Jagadeesan vs Telecommunication on 14 February, 2023
1 0.a. 1887/2018 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA (CIRCUIT AT PORT BLAIR) No. 0.A. 351/01887/2018 Date of order: 14.2.2023 Present: Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member Shri V. Jagadeesan, Aged about 56 years, S/o Velusamy, Working as CGM, BSNL, A&N Circle, Port Blair, R/o Type VI Qtrs., Supply Line, Port Blair. ... Applicant - VERSUS- 1. The Union of India, Through the Secretary to The Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhavan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110 001. 2. The Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhavan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110 001. 3. The Member (Service), Telecom, Commission, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001. 4. The Director (ST-I]), Government of India, Department of Telecom, Sanchar Bhavan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110 001. Leeee Respondents 2 o.a. 1887/2018 For the Applicant : Ms. A. Nag, Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. V.D.S. Balan, Counsel ORDER (Oral)
Per Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member:
The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief: -
"(a) An order /orders/ direction/directions directing the respondent authorities to correct the date of birth of the applicant by replacing the date mentioned in the service records of the applicant from 15.5.1961 to 19.3.1962.
(b) An order directing the respondent authorities to act in accordance with law.
(c) An Order to issue, directing the respondents to produce the records of the case before this Hon'ble Tribunal so that conscious able justice may be done.
(d) Such other or further order, direction or directions, as your Lordships deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The facts of the case, in brief, as stated by the applicant are as under:-
The applicant is a 1985 patch Indian Telecom Service Officer. He joined service in 1987 and applied for a change in his date of birth in 1990. The authorities directed him to furnish the reason for not getting the change in his date of birth effective at the time of appearing for the High School Examination or at the time when he joined service. The applicant in his reply to the department stated that it was a practice in the villages in his childhood to accept oral declaration of the parent as to the date of birth. This date was declared as 15.5.1961 to make him eligible for admission to Elementary School. Later he came to know that his actual date of birth was 19.3.1962 and he obtained a certificate from the Sub-Registrar of Births & Deaths to the effect. The explanation was 3 0.a. 1887/2018 not found satisfactory by the authorities who rejected his claim. His subsequent claim made in 1997and later was also rejected on the same ground.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had in his letter dated 27.6.1991 explained in detail the circumstances under which he applied for a change in his date of birth after joining service and not when he was in High School. He explained to the authorities that he became aware of the discrepancy only when he was in college and he could not possibly have applied for a change in his date of birth when he was in High School. At the time of joining service, he was told that he could apply for a change within five years of joining service. Therefore, he applied in 1990 after joining service in 1987.
3. Per contra, the respondents in their reply have denied the claim of the applicant. It is stated that vide letter dated 17.5.1991 (R/1) the applicant was requested to submit the High School certificate and to explain the reason for not getting the date of birth changed at the time of appearing in High/Secondary School Examination or at the time of joining the department. In response to the same, the applicant instead of submitting his High School certificate had vide letter dated 27.6.1991, inter alia, submitted that he was actually four years old, but to make it five which is prescribed age, his parents entered his date of birth as 15.5.1961 instead of 19.3.1962. However, after examining the case of the applicant in the light of Note 5 below FR 56 amended under notification No. 19017/7/79-Ests-A dated 30.11.1979 (R/2) his claim was rejected by the respondents vide Memo dated 2.8.1991 (R/3). The relevant extracts of the said notification dated 30.11.1979 Note 5 below FR 56 reads as under:-
4 0.a. 1887/2018beceeeeeees An alteration of date of birth of a Government servant can be made with the sanction of Ministry of Department of the Central Government or the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department or an Administrator of a Union Territory under which the Government servant is serving if
(a) A request in this regard is made within five years at his entry into Government service.
(b) It is clearly established that a genuine bonafide mistake has occurred; and
(c) The date of birth so altered would not make him ineligible to appear in any School or University of Union Public Service Commission examination in which he had appeared or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered Government Service......... "
Further, it is stated by the respondents that after the representation of the applicant was rejected vide Memo dated 2.8.1991, the applicant had submitted representation dated 07.08.2018 alleging that he had submitted an appeal on 23.9.1997 i.e. after six years of the order of rejection. As such, the applicant after 20 years of said alleged appeal had submitted a representation that too without any additional facts and documents. Since no additional facts was supplied by him with the said representation dated 7.8.2018, therefore, the competent authority decided to stay with the original decision that was conveyed to aa vide memo dated 2.8.1991 and not acceded to the request 5 0.a. 1887/2018 of the applicant to alter his date of birth vide communication dated
16.10.2004 (R/4). Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the department had rightly replied to the applicant by order dated 28.1991. Thereafter the applicant remained in a questionable silence for more than 20 years and thereafter submitted representation dated 78.2018. Further, it is submitted that the applicant in the first letter dated 13.8.1990 (Annexure A/2) had categorically stated that he came to know about wrong entry of his date of birth at the time of joining service. While in his other letter dated 27.6.1991 (Annexure A/4 of the O.A.) he had stated that he came to know about wrong entry at the time of taking entry into college. In the first letter it is stated that the mistake in date of birth was due to ignorance of his parent while in second letter it was stated that the date of birth was intentionally changed to five years instead of actual age of four years to secure admission in school. The O.M. issued by DoP&T stipulates that "The date of birth so altered would not make him ineligible to appear in any School or University or any UPSC examination in which he had appeared, or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered Government service." Under the circumstances, the competent authority had not accepted the request of the applicant in absence of any material to establish a genuine bonafide mistake in recording of the date of birth.
4. The applicant had filed supplementary affidavit whereby he had produced a copy of his birth certificate issued on 15.7.2021 by the Department of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu to show the registration of his date of birth as 19.3.1962 as well copy of the birth certificate issued by Department of Registration dated 21.7 .1987. He reiterated in supplementary affidavit that on enquiry with his father 6 o.a. 1887/2018 about the reason for mentioning such date of birth in his school record, to this, the father of the applicant told him that it was a mistake due to he being less educated he had simply wrote such date of birth to get the applicant admitted in the school early. Further, it is stated that, the applicant had also enquired from the office of Sub-Registrar and came to know that what his father told about his date of birth is correct. Thereafter, his father had submitted an application for obtaining the birth certificate by correcting his date of birth and accordingly the Sub-
Registrar issued the birth certificate.
5. Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides. Perused the materials placed on record.
6. Itis noticed that the respondents had considered the request of the applicant submitted on 13.8.1990 and same was rejected vide memo dated 2.8.1991 in light of Note 5 below Rule 56. Further, it is evident that the applicant herein admitted that his date of birth was allegedly altered by the parents for the purpose of getting him admitted to the Elementary School. The applicant admittedly could not be admitted to Elementary School if his date of birth was taken as 19.3.1962. This admission on the part of the applicant clearly attracts the proviso in sub para (c) of Note 5 below FR 56 quoted hereinabove. Further, it is also required to be mentioned that altering the date of birth to suit the requirement of admission into school is also a questionable act and the respondents' stand that the applicant had failed to satisfy the condition laid down in Note 5 below FR 56 including the condition (b) of Note 5 cannot be said to have suffered from any legal infirmity.
7 o.a. 1887/20187. We, therefore, see no legal infirmity in the decision of the respondents to reject the claim of the applicant for a change in his date of birth.
8. The O.A. is thus devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
~ V "~ (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) (Suchitto\Kumar Das) Judicial Member Administrative Member sp