Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 665 (1.67 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Harnam Singh on 9 February, 1993

Sau. Aruna Madhavrao Wankhade vs The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati ... on 4 December, 2019

15. Having perused the impugned order dated 27.04.2018, pleadings filed by the Petitioner and after hearing the learned A.G.P. and having perused the copy of judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh (supra), it is seen that the facts of the said case are absolutely identical to the facts of the ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 11:49:25 ::: 16 wp15j.19.odt present case. The respondent Harnam Singh was appointed as Peon on 22.02.1956 and at the time of his entry in service the DoB recorded in his service book was 20.05.1934. Since, Harnam Singh had failed in matriculation examination, against the column of educational qualification "Matric failed" was recorded. On passing matriculation examination subsequently, Harnam Singh was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in Ministry of Home Affairs on 19.04.1957. Thereafter, in the service book, an entry was made showing his educational qualification as "Matric" underneath the earlier entry "Matric failed". Though the DoB of Harnam Singh as recorded in matriculation certificate was 07.04.1938, while amending the entry in service book, the entry relating to DoB was not altered/corrected and thus it continued to be recorded as 20.05.1934.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M N Jadhav - Full Document

Mayaram S/O Sahajram Sadhwani vs Teh Collector, Washim And 3 Others on 15 September, 2022

30. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh (supra), State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble (supra) and CIDCO Vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevalekar (supra), all pertained to the question as to whether the request of employee for change of date of birth at the fag end of the career can be entertained or not. It has been categorically held that such request cannot be entertained at the behest of the employee. In this regard, it is an admitted position that as per Rule 38 of the aforesaid Rules read with relevant Government Resolutions and Circulars, request for change of date of birth after five years of having joined service cannot be entertained at the behest of the employee. But, the crucial question is, as to whether such action of alteration of date of birth cannot be undertaken by the employer after the period of five years of joining of the employee and towards end of service career of the employee. As noted above, in the judgment and order dated 14/10/2013, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2264 of 2012, in the first round of litigation between the parties, after referring to Rule 38 of the said Rules, it was held that under Rule 38(2)(f), although alteration of the PAGE 20 CORRECTED-Judgment WP 1015.2018.odt entry of date of birth once made in the service book is not to be allowed, but, it is also provided that such alteration may take place in specific circumstance. It is for this reason that in the said judgment and order, while remanding the matter to the Chief Officer respondent - Municipal Council, it was categorically held that no fault can be found with the Municipal Council in the facts and circumstances of the present case in initiating the process of alteration of date of birth of petitioner, virtually towards the end of his career.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Harbans Lal vs Punjab National Bank & Others on 22 November, 2017

In Union of India v. Harnam Singh (supra), this Court considered the question whether the employer was justified in declining the respondent's request for correction of date of birth made after thirty five years of his induction into the service and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in allowing the original application filed by him.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Jai Prakash Singh vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd on 9 October, 2023

"8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court Page 16 of 17 or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleepover their rights" (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ).
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N K Vyas - Full Document

Ram Pravesh Singh vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through ... on 20 July, 2018

In Union of India v. Harnam Singh this Court was confronted with almost similar facts. The Court laid down as under: (SCC pp. 172-73, para 15) "15. In the instant case, the date of birth recorded at the time of entry of the respondent into service as 20-5-1934 had continued to exist, unchallenged between 1956 and September 1991, for almost three and a half decades. The respondent had the occasion to see his service book on numerous occasions. He signed the service book at different places at different points of time. Never did he object to the recorded entry. The same date of birth was also reflected in the seniority lists of LDC and UDC, which the respondent had admittedly seen, as there is nothing on the record to show that he had no occasion to see the same. He remained silent and did not seek the alteration of the date of birth till September 1991, just a few months prior to the date of his superannuation. Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches on the part of the respondent to seek the necessary correction would in any case have justified the refusal of relief to him. Even if the respondent had sought correction of the date of birth within five years after 1979, the earlier delay would not have non-suited him but he did not seek correction of the date of birth during the period of five years after the incorporation of Note 5 to FR 56 in 1979 either. His inaction for all this period of about thirty-five years from the date of joining service, therefore precludes him from showing that the entry of his date of birth in service record was not correct."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document

Veena Grover vs Steel Authorities Of India Ltd on 22 February, 2013

Reliance was also placed on State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Gulaichi (Smt.), (2003) 6 SCC p.483, State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V.Venugopalan, (supra), Executive Engineer, Bhadrak ( R & B) Division, Orissa & Ors. Vs. Rangadhar Mallik, (1993) Suppl.1 SCC p.763, Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, (supra) and Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. Vs. R.Kribakaran, (surpa).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bhagirath Singh vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through ... on 12 July, 2017

13. In Union of India v.  Harnam Singh this Court was confronted  with almost similar facts. The Court laid down as under: (SCC pp.  172­73, para 15)     "15. In the instant case, the date of birth recorded at the time  of   entry   of   the   respondent   into   service   as   20­5­1934   had  continued to exist, unchallenged between 1956 and September  1991, for almost three and a half decades. The respondent had  the occasion to see his service book on numerous occasions. He  signed the service book at different places at different points of  time. Never did he object to the recorded entry. The same date of  birth was also reflected in the seniority lists of LDC and UDC,  which the respondent had admittedly seen, as there is nothing on  the record to show that he had no occasion to see the same. He  remained silent and did not seek the alteration of the date of  birth till September 1991, just a few months prior to the date of  his superannuation.  Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches  on the part of the respondent to seek the necessary correction  would in any case have justified the refusal of relief to him. Even  if   the   respondent   had   sought   correction   of   the   date   of   birth  within five years after 1979, the earlier delay would not have  non­suited him but he did not seek correction of the date of birth  during the period of five years after the incorporation of Note 5  to FR 56 in 1979 either. His inaction for all this period of about  thirty­five   years   from   the   date   of   joining   service,   therefore  precludes him from showing that the entry of his date of birth in  service record was not correct."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next