Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Virender Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 27 February, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.252/2013 New Delhi, this the 27th day of February, 2015 Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) Shri Virender Singh, S/o Shri Battan, Ex.Fitter, B. No.5004, T.no. 6224 Unit-Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, R/o 6/90, Khichri Colony, Delhi-110091. ...applicant (By Advocate : Shri Prashant Pandey) Versus Delhi Transport Corporation, Through Chairman, D.T.C. Headquarters, I.P. Estate, Delhi-110002. ...respondent (By Advocate : Shri Ajesh Luthra ) ORDER (ORAL)
The dispute in this case is with regard to the date of birth of the applicant. According to the applicant his date of birth is 20.03.1953 and according to the respondents his date of birth is 01.07.1952.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Sweeper-cum-Cleaner in DTC on 04.02.1978. After completion of probation on 15.06.1979, the respondents issued him a certificate on 05.04.1999, stating that his date of birth is accepted as 20.03.1953. In the Life Insurance Policy dated 29.04.1999 also, the date of birth of the applicant was recorded as 20.03.1953. Later on, the respondents vide their letter dated 04.10.1999 directed the applicant to appear before the Medical Board on 12.10.1999 for fresh assessment of his age. According to the applicant, he appeared before the medical board on the said date and the Medical Board assessed his date of birth as 01.07.1952. According to the records produced by the respondents, the applicant has noted the aforesaid date under his signature on the same date. Thereafter, on 14.02.2012, the respondents issued him a letter saying that on the basis of the date of birth determined as 01.07.1952, he shall stand retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2012. Accordingly, he stood retired on the said date. Thereafter, he made a representation on 26.07.2012 stating that the change of his date of birth was illegal and wrong. He has also stated that since then he has been visiting the office of the Chairman, DTC requesting the officers concerned to restore his date of birth as 20.03.1953. As no action was taken in the matter, he has filed this OA on 14.01.2013.
3. The contention of the applicant is that the respondent - DTC accepted his date of birth as 20.09.1953 way back on 05.04.1999 and he was treated accordingly for more than a decade. Therefore, in the first instance, they should not have asked him on 04.10.1999 to undergo a fresh medical examination for re-assessment of his age. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India Vs. D.R. Dhingra & Anr. - WP(C) No.11685/2009 dated 23.02.2011 and that of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. West Bengal Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad & ors. (2000) 8 SCC 696. In both these judgments, it has been held that the date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee but also for the employer and its change long after joining service, particularly when the employee concerned was due to retire shortly, will upset his service records.
4. The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the date of birth of the applicant was changed way back on 21.10.1999 and he was well aware of it. Further, he has submitted that respondent informed him about the proposed change in his date of birth as 01.07.1952 long before on 14.02.2012, but he never made any representation against the same . It has also submitted that even after he stood retired on 30.06.2012, he has approached this Tribunal only on 16.01.2013. Therefore, his contention is that the applicant was well aware that respondents have recorded his date of birth correctly as 01.07.1952.
5. I have heard Shri Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for respondent. In my considered view, the action on the part of respondent DTC was arbitrary in directing the applicant to have a fresh medical examination for re-assessment of his date of birth when they themselves have accepted his date of birth on the basis of his affidavit, way back on 05.04.1999. However, the fact remains that the respondent DTC had conducted a fresh medical examination of the applicant on 04.10.1999 and after having undergone it, he was informed about the change in his date of birth on 21.10.1999. But the applicant did not make any representation in the matter. Again, he was informed on 14.02.2012 that he will stand retired on 30.06.2012. Again, he has not made any representation. Now, after retirement, the applicant has filed this OA. In my considered view, this case is highly belated one and hit by the law of limitation. Accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( G. George Paracken ) Member (J) rk