Delhi High Court - Orders
Ram Sharan vs Delhi Contonment Board And Ors on 22 October, 2020
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
KAMLESH KUMAR
23.10.2020 10:30
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 191/2020
RAM SHARAN .....Appellant
Through: Mr Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate.
versus
DELHI CONTONMENT BOARD AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Shrivenkatesh and Mr Aditya
Ajay, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 22.10.2020 The hearing was conducted through physical court. CM APPL.27134/2020 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed-off.
FAO 191/2020&CM APPLs.27132/2020 (interim relief) and 27133/2020 (seeking permission to file additional documents)
1. Issue notice.
2. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel named above for the respondents.
3. At joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for disposal.
4. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.08.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Civil Suit No.391 of 2017, denying him the relief to continue in service till 2022 on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate, according to which his date of birth is 02.10.1962.
5. Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the matriculation certificate is the first document to be taken into consideration to determine the age of the appellant. It is not in dispute that the said document had been submitted to the respondents and it was for them to update the record accordingly. The updation and scanning of the record was outsourced. Albeit, the appellant had signed the Service Book, the anomaly was not noticed at the time. It was noticed only in the year 2012. The appellant immediately sought rectification of the records in terms of the matriculation certificate.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant's representation is an afterthought, because he has signed the Service Book way back in the year 2002; it would be presumed that he had read it all carefully and had acquiesced to its correctness. He further submits that a Seniority List was subsequently circulated in 2003 and 2010, by the appellant did not raise any objection to the same.
7. However, the appellant employee that this aspect has not been dealt in the impugned order. This issue is yet to be determined before the learned Trial Court. If it is subsequently established that the appellant was not apprised of the aforementioned Seniority List, then it could not be said that the petitioner has acquiesced to the said List.
8. The Court is of the view that since the matriculation certificate is a basic document which forms the basis of recording the date of birth of an employee, it is important that this document be seen and verified. The court is informed that the appellant's passport and UIDAI card also reflect the same date of birth, i.e., 02.10.1962. So the same cannot be doubted and it cannot be said that he has manipulated anything. The erroneous recoding of his date of birth due to inadvertent oversight should not curtail his service tenure, in which he otherwise has a 'birth right' to continue for two more years, till his chronological age of superannuation.
9. The learned counsel for the parties submit that the case is at the stage of recording of evidence, only a couple of witnesses need to be examined and few documents that need to be verified/looked into.
10.The learned counsel for the respondents, relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. v Shri Dinabandhu Majumdar & Anr. 1995 (4)SCC 172. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has held that the matriculation certificate given at the end of the tenure of an employee would not be relied upon against the service report.
11.However, in the present case, the appellant had raised the issue almost eight years earlier, i.e., almost midway through his employment/tenure with the respondents.
12.In the circumstances, the appellant would continue in service till the next date of hearing fixed before the learned Trial Court, lest he be prejudiced by 'premature' retirement on 31.10.2020; whereafter he cannot possibly return to service.
13.The parties submit that a time frame be fixed for disposal of the suit, preferably in two months. This Court is confident that when such a request is made before the learned Trial Court, it would be duly considered.
14.The appeal, along with pending applications, stands disposed-off in terms of the above.
15.Nothing stated in this order shall be deemed to be an adjudication on the merits of the case.
16.The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the counsels through e-mail.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J OCTOBER 22, 2020/rd