Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Umesh Kumar Singh vs Eastern Railway on 6 April, 2021
• ».
4 i'
^.
« i ' -h; ■ OA 328 of 2020
' » t
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
c - -
CALCUTTA BENCH, KOLKATA
V
I
O.A./350/00328/ 2020 , <
| ; '■ £.* l.
r- •
Coram Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial-Member
Hon'ble Dr. N. Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Umesh Kumar Singh,
C/O - Sri Bhagwan Singh,
Worked as Parcel Porter
at AsarisoVin Eastern Railway,
residing at C/O-Uma.Shank'ar Singh,
Domohahi Railway Colony,
QterJ^Jo. 554/A/93, opposite Arunaday High School,
P.O'.-.Kali C.H., . 'v ' '
P.S. -"Asansol hlbrth', .,
r
District - PaschimrBardhhaman - 713302,
worked at Parcel Office, Malda Station
} UndecSr.-DCM,.Eastern Railway,; Malda..
■ i
Applicant.
' r .m :"
i
?" ^ i
Versus
' * ^
1. Union of India t
through the General Manager,
Eastern Railway,
: t
17, Netaji Subhas Road,
Kolkata-700 001.
2. The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager,
Eastern Railway,
f
Malda Division, DRM Office,
Malda-732101.
<
3. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
Eastern Railway, !
Malda Division, DRM Office,
Malda - 732101.
Respondents.
i
i
i v j
^.
i
i
i
2 r; * O.A. 328 of 2020
For the applicant : vMr. A. Chakraborty- Gouhs'el ~ ■\rJ. j/
t t ,
VJt
: i ' •! i
For the respondents Mr. K.-Sarkar, Counsel
*•
i
1
Date of Order: ^ i
.% V
<•*
ORDER
Per: Bidisha Baneriee, Judicial Member ^• . ,'tiS j *4J y t ' A • i ...
Id.'Counsels were heard.
v • 1 *
2. This O.A. has been preferred to seek the following reliefs: \
; ■ 1 "v-- • ,'t. . ■
"8.i) Office [order being No. ET-2/Misc/MLDT dated 14.01.2020 issued by the respondent No. 2 ahdrcommunicqtion thereof vide Office Order dated 14:01.2020 by the respondent No, 3 is not tenable in the.eye-of law and as such the same may be quashed. :*: * 'neat'* r ■ *> ' •. ; t.- .« . v--' ssi r; ■■■'?■■(' -id.,* fir
ii) An order do issue directing the respondents to correct the date of i birth entries in the service record of the applicant in accordance with school', record and thereby,re-instate him along-, with grant of all consequential benefits along with interest accrued thereon. ( Hi) Costs and Incidentals.
iy) Pass such further or other order or orders and . other relief/s as may be deemed)fit and proper in tfye peculiar factscircumstances pftfhe present case;"
!
3. The brief facts leading to application as under: < < The Applicant was, initially, working as Casual Parcel Porter in Eastern Railway at Asansol and, even after completion of considerable time period in such capacity when he was not absorbed he preferred a Writ application being W.P.(Civil) NO. 90 of 1997, through a Union in which order for regularization and absorption was passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India subject to certain terms and conditions. Railways issued one fetter being No. CCN/P.Porter/Regn.96 dated 12.01.1999 seeking full particulars from the candidates and the applicant Accordingly, he submitted full particulars in prescribed proforma and submitted the same on 03.02.1999. 126 candidates were ordered for screening and selection by the Railway Administration in the year 2000 and, accordingly. Office order dated 07.11.2000 was issued to the applicant asking him to attend the Railway Office with documents in support of date of birth, education qualification, caste certificate character certificate and required number of passport size i.1
......f >
:
-» i
' r
-■t- . '3 ' v ' ''OiA:328of 202b 'r*; ;-jf r.3/-:
/ .J,> tr ho
J ' >. .
: ■ /
> *
photos duly'attested hy Gazetted Officer ohd Accordingly the,applicant , submitted', ail such documents. Even^after submission'of dll the document's, . the Railways did not make entry ofthe correct date of birth of the applicant. It was learnt that the entry pf the date of birth of the 'applicant has been made as on Of.01.1955.. Medical board was conducted where the^applicant was ordered to sign on thymedical papers and he did so, but substance and materials filled in on medical papers hddnofbeeh rigdpvef'or explqured^ fo. s t him. No^cdfiy of the report of medical boardt was furnished to him. for which he was never aware of the, contents thereof alhdt wps never m a,^ position to raise objection against ahy 'wrong recording That it is well 1 settled principle that the date^of ' birth of a candidate recorded in educational certificate is the concrete and authenticate one. More so, after 1 thefcompletiJp of medical process-and before appointment the .attestation - form had been obtained and accepted by the Divisional Personnel Officer, of the':£astern Railway which contains the correct date of birth ofthe applicant i.e,'02.02.1966. Applicant-approached the authoritieson many occasions for making entry, of his correct date-of■ birth in the railway, records but,to pp avail. He^preferred onerOA\No. 350/1909/2018- which lwas->disposedlof;fpn-: •»
23.d2.2019 with a direction.toJopk into the grievances ofthe applicant and to consider the same in terms of the judgment and to pass appropriate order within a stipulated period after giving oral hearing. That, vide one office order dated 08.01.2020 the applicant was directed to appear before respondents}onyl4.01.2020, on. which alb the dpcuments^andjudgments- were again placed. That the respondent NO. 2 pass a speaking order dated 14.01.2020 rejecting his prayer on the ground that his claim cannot be considered .at the fag end of his service. The speaking order was communicated to the applicant vide fetter dated 14.01.2020 of <the respondent * No." 3* thereby* advising 'the' applicant' :to 'fill 'up" th¥ pehhbn ' 1 booklet ■t; ■ ' The applicant has pleaded that the speaking order is not.tenable in the:eye of law since all the educational certificate was submitted by the applicant showing his date of birth on 02.02.1966 and attestation form submitted to that effect was duly accepted by the railways in 2000 that the respondents committedia blatant error in wrongly recording the same in the service book ofthe applicant and thereby compelling him to retire before he attained the age of 60 years. Hence, this application. ! !
4. At hearing both the sides were directed to produce the documents in support of their claim.1
t
-The documents furnished by applicants which forms part of records are as under:
t r i 7 J •* '• ..
•f
f V
u* 4 - O.A. 328 of 202.0 fe-
! < n. ' ■'i ■ { ■:
A Transfer Certificate dated 15.8.84 in,Hindi vernacular. That bears the following:
i i
!
r
Date of birth as 2.2.1966 '
" r
i
Date of entry in school as 22.1.1977 1 i
Date of Leaving School as 31:12.1980 * <> i
* i
*
Class as Eighth passed.
J Z'
The documents furnished by Respondents:
, . .. • di
1. vide letter dated 7.11.2000 the applicant was.asked to furnish the I,
following:
No.E(T-?)'/Gonml/i j/'Vrgt/P. Porter y. f/-
"^ansol/^t. .J -2000.
;
To U'Trjask. ULrrruxjr
\
C/d Sri
Q K- fc^cxlJ^CKJir > • Jr
f>S%:P,Q - , , *5 .
Sub: *<egularisation of Parcel Ro rteys* Hon'ble Supreme Court'/.'s order d£ 16.10*98 In ^rit pe.tttlon9G:ivil.i , Nq, 90/1997.
In corwjo^tion with the above, you are advised to' immediately attend this office on any working day with the following original documents:-
i) Certificates in support of your.pete of Birth & Educational -Sualif icationX Ssfigol/Cbllege I certifleato® or Affidavit). 1
ii) Caste Certificate , if aiy.
?■ iiii Character certificate issued from Gaze'tted officer.
iu) 04 copies of your recent passport si^.e photographs duly attested by a Gazetted Officer.
;
for Sr. ^ivl. Pa rsonnel Officer,
<
u £. 'Rly, As an sol. •
r\
2. The form filled up by the applicant on 2.2.99 as under:
i.
t i i t > I OA 328 of 2020 5 7 • -f > -
-k;"-
EBWfe-i5^ ;5W-VS-ft-icn*l Hajlway f »ager , E*SS? v#tf*tern Railway, Aoansol .
£is*A. Subs cider passed by t.be Hon'bl-e SuprernewCou?,t of India on 16.10-98 In writ petitioIrMoavi 1 ) w». 90 of 1997 -- Railway Parcel and^OocdB Ha-idlino Ma*dccr onion vs - obion. of .3 tiaia ana ©tbero. .''I R «rf { letter M>-.qp^P..Pcrter/Reqn--y:^;
I . dt . 12 ..01.99
Sit , .
Jn ccnnocticn with
. 302 petitioners In detail the above the-parliicbl-axa'cf, the; ' ; . . . • aiicare .ie ae. under .for* oa aeked'£cr. vide-.^.your 'guated-
i c ^
your. end,. • ••".■• yoxxr 1 nforma-t-ion and further action from-. , • 71
i ■' / '
' piz£scyTtf0T>>--£/csar
1Complete pcatal addreae,
sysft-.HR^s&'.'RSWsifre&Efae
.station etc. - ps^~ DJ57~-
P£*imao"hi -- ^par*?dt
ps,- vo.Ro^c-van ■ jh'st - ^hh&'piia
2. Father fs name
3. Station Cf wor Ja ng * SAZ- PMHLAb :
s < H. Date of birth * zjfc.3 j 1SU ♦ Coraniunlty i * (m a 1 ■ Date of. engagenene aa ittb?ur * l Cr3 !cS l ____
7.' Oualificee icn ••? • •si, - 1 cde'n^'^YO.'Vv.; » , i t'Ul •s ■ /'.LASS'* WHL. PQA'SEd ' 'j Y£S'- ■ ' i 1 i ;
. c L..
the above case) Dite' ulIjaI12 29.12.2000 which shows that the Attestation form filled up on
3. licant had duly declared his date of birth as 2.2.1966 with the TC app dated 15.8.84.
.2008 which shows date of birth as 1.1.60. Service book entered in 4.7
4. after his regular in service book 8 years The reason why the entry m
5. made as 1.1.60/ instead of 2.2.66 is neither appointment in 2002 was ! i A' • '•< 6 •* fm n 0;A.'328 of 2020 ' / ;• .J ' &■ t comprehensible nor countenanced. Thetentry made by respondents in .the service r - ' ' ,T^. . ■ • Si/' <-!•;?« ,x i .. • / book is without any basis.
./ . \ r V.' « Dirr.rt^r,
W
/
'.. .4
.; ,■
! ft'
<tnv v 6. The applicant has heavily relied upon a decision „of this Tribunal in M6D 9S ! -s\ •.
!
'/v ' ■*>: 1 ! •
^^7 Narayan Singh and Probal Chatterjee. ■ >• rr
7. In Mod Narayan' Singh' this Tribunal having considered the following
-V ■ r* i decisions:
k i ' . ' ;• • r- A.: .
"(l) Union of Indigos- Harnam Singh [1993 (2) SCC162J;
(2} Md. Ynus Khan -vs- U.R. Power Corporation ltd. & Ors[2009 (1) SCC80];
(3) State of Tamil Nadu -vs- T.V. VenugopalanJ(1994) 6 SCC 302];
. • fJ i. «> '. | ' v '
■
(4) Stote of Punjab -vs- Mohinder Singh [Appeal (Civil) 3739 of 2005] [SU 2005 (2)
pg 477];'
!
(5) Kamta Pandey -vs- M/s BCCL through its Chairman cum Managing Director,
Koyla Bhawan, Dhanfyad & Ors. [2007 (3) JUR 7216]; \
■■ 'V „ a*
(6) - Ramandnd Tiwary -vs- Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. [LPA 493 of2000]; i
(7) Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Branch & Ors. -vs- Bhupesh Ranjan
Karanjai & Moti Ranjan Bhattacharyya;
(8) Home Department -vs- R. Kirubakaran [1994 Supp (1) SCC 165];
* ' * • . f ' .
(9) Union of India -vs- C. Rama Swdmy [1997 (4) SCC 647]; -- _
v , . - . J • Nr: , • • • . «
(10) Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh -vs- Meghraj Ggrg & Anr. [(2010)
6SCC482]; ' < - ~ ............
■ *
tr k
(11) State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. -vs- Preme Lal Shrivas [20il '(9) SCC 664]; -
- - f • *. - I**.' ' L. t ••
(12) StateofU.P. -vs-Shiv Narain Upadhyaya[2005 (6) SCC49];
(13) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. -vs- Bajrangi Rabidas [2014 (13) SCC 681];"
An extract of the
i
discussions made in the order is as under:
*8. In regard to correction of date of birth after entry in service the following legal position could be noticed:
0) In Union of India-vs- Harnam Singh [(1993 (2) SCC 162] the Hon'ble Apex Court xxx observed as under: (extracted with supplied emphasis for clarity) "... The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that right to continue in service stands decided bv its entry in the service record. A Government servant who has declared his aae at the initial stage of the employment is. of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his aae. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth os different from the one earlier recorded and even if & !.
I f £ 1 J 7 O.A. 328.bf 2020 ' ; J ■ ;
y there /s no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must'do so without any unreasonable delay/' , ' '' *"
>4 /n Md) Yunus Khan -vs- U.P.*Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. [2009 (1) SCC 80] 00 the Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that there was still a period of about four years before appellant was to retire<on the basis of his uncorrected date of birth: Hence it-heldl "his request for correction should have received favourable consideration"., j (Hi) In State of Tamil Nadu -vs- t.V. Venugopalah [(1994) 6 SCC 302] Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus 'It is well known that the service record would be opened after the government servant enters the service and normally the entry in service record would be countersigned by the government servant. The date of birth as entered in the school-record is the source of materials for making entry in the service record."
(iv) In State of Punjab -vs- Mohinder Singh [Appeal (Civil) 3739 of 2005] [sU 2005 (2) pg*477] the Hon'ble Apex Court held that ;
t j£. i "...Entries in the school register and admission form regarding date of birth constitute good proof of aae. There is no legal requirement that the public or other official book should be kept only by a public officer and all that is required under* Section 35 of the Evidence Act is that is should be regularly kept in clischarge of official dutv.'tn^tfie instant case the entries in the school register were made ante litem motam." , ...
i • i M In Kamta Pandey -vs- M/s BCCL through its Chairman cum Managing birector, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad &' Ors. [2007 (3) JUR 7216] Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi found that "Matriculation Certificate issued by recognised Educational Board has been 'obtained by an employee before his employment/ and the dote of birth as per Matriculation Certificate having been mentioned in I. Card issued by Company, immediately after appointment". The Hon'ble Court held 4 a ■ * "If the Court is fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for 'correction has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed and when a clear case relating to date of birth is made out on the basis of clinching materials, necessary direction to make a declaration of said date of birth can be given".
(emphasis supplied)
(vi) In Ramanand Tiwary -vs- Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. [LPA 493 OF 2000] the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi considered the following facts:
f.
t "The petitioner-appellant was appointed as a General Mazdoor in the company of the respondents on 20.2.1970. After 10 years, on the basis of his Matriculation certificate containing his date of birth as 31.12.1950, he was promoted to the post of Attendant Clerk on 23.5.1980. Though the appellant submitted his Matriculation Certificate and other Certificates containing his date of birth to be 31.12.1950 the respondents asked him to appear before the Medical Board. Accordingly he was subjected to the medical test. The Medical Board on 29.9.1989 an physical assessment of the appellant, found him to be 40 years of age. As per the report of the Medical Board his date of birth was 29.9.1949".
The Hon'ble Court therefore held as under:
i
8 O.A. 328 of 2020 "\Ne ore of the considered opinion that the respondent authorities committed grave illegality in issuing the letter impugned treating his date of superannuation as 31.1.2006. since as per the Matriculation Certificate his is to retire on 31.12.2010. Accordingly, the impugned letter is quashed, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the respondents are directed- to correct the petitioner-appellant's age in their records in- terms of the Matriculation Certificate and pass consequeritial orders, like reihduction into service with all the benefits and allow him to continue till he attains superannuation."
f
' : ' (emphasis supplied)
r :n'.'A,-" • ■ . • ■
(vii) In Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Branch & Ors. -vs- Bhupesh Ranjan
Karanjai & Moti Ranjan Bhattacharyya, rendered by Special Bench of Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta on 26.3.93, <,• "...the moot question for determination was whether a Government servant can apply for correction of date of birth subsequent to his entry in service on production of a Matriculation Certificate which could not be produced at the relevant time for the purpose of recording of the date of birth which would be contrary to the date of birth recorded in the service book or declared at the time of entry in his service". , 1 • Hon'ble Court held:
t: -* "In service jurisprudence, the principle of estoppels cannot be strictly applicable so as to debar a person from coming forward with correct facts and figures so as to enable the authority concerned from correcting the same to take a decision thereof."
V Hon'ble Court considered the implications of.the Rules 9(1), 9(3), 9(4) and 9(5) of WBSR Part 1,197 and held as under
• t } * "The expression, 'no right to revise it subsequently' appearing in Rule 9(1) bfjhe West Bengal Service Rules, Part I, means that the Government Servant has no right to revise the declaration already submitted in Form I. IN other words, he is precluded from revising his own declaration as of right. This does not take away his right to apply for rectifying an apparent mistake or error before the appointing authority or the State Government, as the case may be, for invoking the power of review was specifically provided in Rule 9(5) of the Rules.
The binding effect of the declaration under Rule 9(1) of the said rules would arise only when the declaration was made with a copy of the matriculation certificate and whereupon under Rule 93) of the said rules the authority has passed an order. A'isimple declaration under Rule 9(1) without anything more, cannot create a total bar to apply for correction n the basis of the matriculation certificate.
Thus in order to disentitle a Government employee from asking for revision of the date of birth there must be an order under Section 9(3)(4) and that when the date of birth is recorded on the basis of the matriculation certificate the same could not be allowed to be reopened at the instance of the Government servant. On a plain reading of Rule 9(5) of the said Rules it is clear that a government servant can apply for review of his date of birth recorded in the service record if he con make a good and sufficient cae on production of some relevant document. The power of review under Rule 9(5) could only be invoked on the basis of the principles of review for correcting the error apparent on the face of the record and for the purpose of taking into of new and additional evidence."
L
f - <*■- * -. o.
< .■w ■ i
9 O.A. 328 of 2020
/t wos considered the following decisions where contrary view was taken ■* ;
«*-- • +,ifr "■»
f */l *r*
(i) In Home Department -vs- ft, Kirubakaran {1994 Supp (1) SCC165]
i ' •»
"...unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in'nature, is mode out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is 3 1993 Supp (1) SCC 763 : 1993 SCC (L&S) :
276 : {1993} 23 ATC 4;{1993) 2 SCC 162 :1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92 issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real iniustici to the person concerned'and his claim for correction of date of birth has been mhde in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order, x x x The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which mav dmount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book."
'4 • - ; rr
(vi) In Union of India -vs- C, Rama'Swamy [1997 (4) SCC 647] the Hon'ble Apex Court held: t ] H.V -* ' : v "...It will not be unreasonable to oresurhe that when a*candidate at th'e first instance communicates a particular date of birth there is obviously his intention that his age calculated on the basis of that bate of birth should be taken into consideration bv the appointing office."
* - •' r ** ■ (Hi) In Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh -vs- Meghraj Garg & Anr.
[{20ici) 6 SCC 482] Hon'ble Apex Curt held, where the respohdentshad sought for correction of date of birth recorded in his service book, after 12 years of his joining the service, as clearly misconceived.
(iv) In state of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. -vs- Prem Lai Shrivas {2011 (9) SCC 664) although the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that change, of date of birth in service record at fag end of career is to be permitted only in exceptional cases on irrefutable proof, the Hon'ble Court held "On facts held. High Court committed manifest error in allowing change of date of birth after lapse of over two decodes notwithstanding that no period for filing such application was prescribed." '
(v) In State of U.P. -vs- Shiv Narain Upadhyaya [2005 (6) SCC 49] while reiterating the aforesaid proposition of low the Hon'ble Apex Court castigated the practice of raising dispute by the public servant about incorrect recording of date of birth in their service book on the eve of their retirement.
Further the following propositions were also notied:
[ In Eastern Coalfields Ltd. -vs- Bajrangi Rabidas [2014 (13) SCC 681] the Hon'ble Apex Court found the following: 1 "... there con be no iota of doubt that the date of birth mentioned in Matriculation or Higher Secondary certificate has to be accepted as authentic."
A sum up of legal propositions enumerated hereinabove would be as under:
(1) A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is not precluded from making a request later on for correction of his age xxx. xxx..... -..xxx. if he is in possession of an irrefutable proof relating to his dote of birth as-different from the one earlier recorded and even if no period of t i i i i lv/ " * ■"••■ 1 *.
fa*' * fci&ls&pfc ft-1 *»*&*■%*■$* rw** ^ ^ <^k:fj.' n*rv •^1 / ^ . ,ji- > t ti - i& ~J£ *&< t ; irtE:-;* % fjfi- ^ ^^ ga iS&U^T' &S(rt3?i <41° (' O.A. 328 of 2020 • ■ 1 » j» * //m/tot/on wos prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth the Government ) 'j sen/ont must do so w/thout any unreasonable delay. (Harnam Singh supra) (2) Unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in . nature, is made out by the respondent, the Court or, the Tribunal should not issue a ^ | -r » -*'• % r i- ■ » « • . - *-«i * f ^ ' / , ^.direction, on Jhe,.basis,of materials which make..such claim onlyAplausible. JR.
'je-* « ^ *' •*;.*","-**■**' -S' *►' * •** '** '-rr,„ \ -wr-M-t •, i
~'ub°k?rayjiipry€jbr* * * tar r««
/SJ A Tribunal or a Court must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice, to the ♦» • - *kr' 't ^ W•» '"tf - V. „ person concerned and his claim, for.correction can be made in accordance, with the *- r*. '1' h f ' * 'C ' t 4^ ' &•*.** «•*» »'* * »'T ' ■* 1 '' procedure prescribed and within the time fixed by any rule or order. (R. Kirubakaran A ^ ft' u •' AJ' s-ts* •' . ^ **x -i<r y A. • f4j correct/on of date of birth can be allowed even at the fag end of service when a clear 'cose/relating'y.o dote of birth is made out on the basis of clinching materials. (Kamta Pandey Supra) ^ f *'4. pts to* *n "r. '*i +*■•?> «--r'$ t c the (5),The onus is upon,the.app//cont to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth in his xr.servicebpok. 'fc • ithigfr ■' >1** .. o-J ' 9* to r ft) ' -Wj i.- > ■wi-r'i* ^ (6) ffhe date of birth entered in the' school record is the source of materials for^making .entry, in the service records. (TM Venugopalan supra) j tntft (7)£ntries in school register and admission form regarding date^of birth constitute good proof of aae. (Mohinder Sinah supra)"
. - .fijrfrt'ft&ftrru -r »; tAr iM***?* r xrf Jrttr.CJ i'X** un^Sn JCfr' t+y* * *** " rn-.*** r'o -1. •a ^ c; *n > li » :re This Tribunal having considered the matter as such held as under: iH*"! r/V < f* rs** ^ ^ .1*-* "12.* fhot opart/'/aw /s well settled that in absence of birth certificates. Matriculation Certificates or School records have: <y higher probative value for;determinotion of date of birth which the Railway Rules also amply recognise, as indicated supra. The certificates Which'Constituted irrefutable proof of their age being availoble^theYe was no occasio'n for the respondents to record the date of birth as per age determined by a Medical Board in violation of their^own*statutory rules (Para'f225 Ibidj^ fh^y'could'l^Sort lo^such a procedure only upon failure on part of the applicants to declare their age with sufficient proof. They were bound by their own explicit provisions. - .
13.
! t i ,: ■ '1 Furthejrmore, there were no provisions in the rules which would allow on the basis of a screening committee's recommendations, ascertainment of age through a Special Medical Soortf when irrefutable proof in 'regard to Vote'o/ birth*was available. Therefore the.date'of birth'in the case of applicants were not recorded in accordance with para 225 ibid and as such it could not held to be binding in terms of para 225(4) ibid and also it could be altered on the basis of irrefutable proof.
% k '• r t
I
14. /t could be further noticed that the service record entries were mode only in 2004 (as Mod Narayantsingh's record would reveal) and not in'2000 as claimed by the respondents. Therefore it is not 0 cose where 0 change of dote of birth was sought by the applicants long after their entry into records, or at the fag end of their career or that the *• erroneous recording of date of birth was at the behest of the applicant or that a change in the recorded date would exemplify and demonstrate that the applicants had gained entry unscrupulously, by suppressing their actual age in order to gain undue advantage.
■ I
15. In such view of the matter the impugned orders of the OAs are quashed and the respondents are directed to correct the date of birth entries in the service records of the applicants, in accordance with their Matriculation Certificates/ School records and pass appropriate order within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order."
t <■- *. * * K
i
fr* V **!• s$! t-T. -*•
* Ti /■ ^4 1
» £
In Probal Chattefjee [O.A>1139/2018] this Tribunal held as under:
44* -■ ' * s.:*' r - i r V * A -s lr .
i. sr't V I
ku *
* . ft '* 4 ^ 1
I
4*
► I ' 4 ■w 1
it ; i t \
/■*v\
^* * r,* !>
:.i r ^
; 1 Vyl. % V
U
i r
f
<1
>v f* \ t r
* 4'1 n *
■If.- •I- ■iv*
c* <! : I
t *♦
* ■ I
1
i i *
11 O.A. 328 of 2020
</
t
i
{ t - . r\ *> - ••• -r-'7. ;f« ** - ■ f-' .
"2. The grievance of the applicant in o nutshell is that his-date of .birth has been wrongly recoded^as 11.01.1960 in place of 11.0l\1965 ignoring the original documents and admit card which' were submitted before the authority concerned. His representation, with all documents, was not considered. The applicant alleges that the act and action on the part of the railway authorities is in utter violation of the principle of natural justice vnd equity. i >■ i-; !:
3. Per contra, to refute his claim, Ld. Counsel for the respondents would place the extract of service record of the applicant which demonstrates that the applicant has put his signature on the page which records his date of birth as 11.01.1960. Further, Admit Card of West Befigal Board of Secondary 'Education,' a^Gheck^ist, 'Proforma ^for Family Declaration and Application Form, all bear date of birth as 11.01.1960. !
4. ' ' Ld. Counsel for the applicant would strenuously urge that the applicant sfiould not suffer for the erroneous recording of date of birth as 11.01.1960 when the certificate of Madhyamik Pariksha, which has 'the highest probative value in the matters of dispute in date of birth, bears his date of birth as 11.01.1965.
5yWe heard-the Ld: Counsels qpd perused the materials on record. *
6. In view of the fact that date of birth in Admit Card of Madhyamik Pariksha has highest1 probative value, the authoriiies are-dii'ected to'-ascertaih from'the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education the correctness of the Admit Card and other Certificates (Annexure-^/2 tdXhe O'.Af and to act accordingly."t < lorn ' >% i In the aforesaid backdrop, we would note that the respondents have miserably failed to justify why a deliberate wrong entry of date of birth (as 1.1.60) ; . ' ' '■>..! was made .-in" tlje service book in 2008 when the applicant hadfdeclared.jand produced a'll the documents bearing his date of birth as 2.2.66 at the time^of i verification of dpcuments in 1999 and before his entry into service in 2000. ■
8. Having considered the rival contentions and having noted the deliberate « wrong entry made in the service book we direct the authorities to verify the genuineness of the TC and correct the Service Book entry to allow the applicant to reap benefits of the same.
No costs.:
* k. <• ! (Dr. N. cRatterjee) (Bidisha Bafnerjee) Administrative Member Judicial Member i j t i drh >.
; i
i
V
!