Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.C. Verma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 10 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)MPHT384
Author: A.K. Mishra
Bench: A.K. Mishra
ORDER Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This petition is directed against the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur dated June 25, 1999, passed in O.A. No. 1 of 1999.
2. The petitioner is working as a Tailor with Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur owned by respondent No. 1 of which respondent No. 2 is the General Manager.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded in his service record. His correct date of birth is 18-5-1943 but it has been wrongly recorded as 17-8-1940. He moved an application for correction of the service record and also filed representations after representations but no action was taken. Consequently, the Central Administrative Tribunal was approached which has rejected the claim by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for parties were heard. Record perused.
5. Shri Khalid Fakhruddin submits that Tribunal's Order is liable to be quashed since it did not take into consideration positive evidence furnished by the petitioner in support of his claim. Elaborating the contention, the learned counsel referred certain documents on the file and prayed that his correct date of birth is 18-5-1943 and the respondents be directed not to superannuate the petitioner on the basis of wrongly recorded date of birth as 17-8-1940.
6. Mrs. Nair appearing for the respondents submitted that the claim of the petitioner was grossly delayed. Therefore, it was rejected. It is also contended that the petitioner did not protest his date of birth for number of years. Therefore, he is estopped from contending that the date of birth recorded in his service record is not correct.
7. The petitioner is not a Matriculate. He failed in Class X Examination (Annexure P-12) in 1961. He has filed Certificate from Dr. Ghosh Modern College, Allahabad Register No. 10144 which reflects his date of birth as 18-5-1943 (Annexure 2). The same is recorded in Certificate of the Principal, dated 9-8-1963. These two certificates demonstrate that the date of birth of the petitioner is 18-5-1943. The service record, Annexure R-l mentions his date of birth as 17-8-1940. It is recorded on the basis of Medical Certificate. There is no record pointing out that the petitioner was called upon to furnish proof with respect to his age. Therefore, it is not understandable as to how his date of birth has been recorded on the basis of Medical Certificate. Had the petitioner been called upon to furnish proof as to his age, certainly he would have furnished these two certificates. The result was that his service record continued to record his date of birth on the basis of Medical Certificate. With respect to an educated person the best evidence as to age is Matriculation Certificate. Since the petitioner has not passed Matriculation, his school record can be examined for verification of his age. His School Certificates show his date of birth as 18-5-1943. Consequently, we hold that the petitioner has established his claim that his correct date of birth is 18-5-1943.
8. Now, next question is whether the petitioner could apply for correction of the date of birth and if so, when.
9. The petitioner was employed as Tailor Grade-C in the Army at Allahabad. His age at that stage was 18 years. It appears that he did not understand the importance of recording date of birth; that is why he did not produce these certificates from his school nor was he asked to do so and his date of birth was recorded on Medical Certificate. When he came to know of it in 1976, he preferred representation on 17-10-76, which is clear from the communication of respondents dated November 22, 1976 - Annexure 9. Thereafter, the petitioner had furnished School Certificate by communication dated December 27, 1978 to the Senior Inspector of Armaments, GCF Post, Jabalpur (M.P.) - Annexure 10. Respondents, by letter dated May 21, 1983 -Annexure 11, rejected the same. But, the same communication calls upon the petitioner to produce valid documents in support of the claim, like Extract from the Municipal Birth Register or Horoscope within a reasonable time as per the rules then in force. Therefore, the petitioner moved another request for change of date of birth accompanied by School Certificate and Affidavit. In 1987, communication (Annexure 3) shows that clarification was sought and the matter was kept open for some time and revived in 1996 (Annexure 4). All these facts clearly suggest that the petitioner was not keeping quiet. After coming to know about the recording of wrong date of birth in his service record, he had been approaching and requesting the respondents to correct the same by several communications and submitted documentary proof in support of his claim. Therefore, no delay was committed by the petitioner in seeking correction of his date of birth in his service record.
10. For the reasons stated above, it cannot be said that this case is barred under Rule 56 Note 6 which calls upon a person to apply for correction of date of birth within five years from December 15, 1979. On the principle of reasonableness, even assuming that the petitioner was appointed on the post prior to the commencement of Note 6 of F.R. 56, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of this rule. Even otherwise, the action would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since, there is no basis for discrimination between the employees who seek correction of date of birth prior to December 15,1979 and those who seek such correction thereafter (See : AIR 1993 SC 1367, Union of India v. Harnam Singh). Therefore, rejection of petitioner's representation in 1983 is rendered illegal in the light of this decision and so also the rejection recorded in 1996.
11. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The Order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur dated June 25, 1999 is set aside and it is declared that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 18-5-1943. His service record be corrected accordingly. The petitioner will continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation, taking his date of birth as 18-5-1943.