Surendra Pal Singh vs Union Of India
1997 Latest Caselaw 212 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

(1) The short controversy involved in this writ petition is, as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner is 21.1.1939 or 21.1.1941 ?

(2) The minimum facts which are necessary to dispose of this writ petition are recapitulated as under:-

(3) The petitioner, who is a Railway employee has prayed in this petition that the order dated 16.1.97 be quashed. The order reads as under:- "Shri S.P. Singh, ASC/Prosecution is retiring from Railway service on 31.1.97 on attaining the age of superannuation. In order to arrange his settlement dues, no demand certificate in favour of the above named officer may please be sent to this office urgently."

(4) The writ petition of the petitioner came up for admission hearing before this court on 30.1.1997. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 21.1.1941 whereas inadvertently, it has been recorded as 21.1.1939 in the high school certificate. He also submitted that he made the representation on 13.7.1970 and in pursuance of his representation, the General Manager had ordered correction in the date of birth of the petitioner from 21.1.1939 to 21.1.1941. The said letter which had been sent by the Chief Security Officer to the Inspector General Railway Protection Force; New Delhi reads as under:- "NO.220E/1/1-67 R.P.F. (Loose) Headquarters Dated 17.3.1979 Office Inspector General Baroda House Nd Railway Protection Force, Railway Board, New Delhi. Sub: Correction of the date of birth of Shri Surendra Pal Singh P.I. Northern Railway Jodhpur. The General Manager, Northern Railway has ordered the correction of date of birth of P.I. Surendra Pal Singh from 21.1.39 to 21.1.41 on the basis of the statement of Pradhan, birth register, School records, affidavit and enquiry report of A.S.O./ALD yet the benefit of two years in age does not seem proper and desirable. Therefore, the entire record is being forwarded to you for further enquiry and revising the order of General Manager by reference to the competent Authority. . D.A. one file in 19 pages. sd/- Chief Security Officer"

(5) It was submitted that the necessary correction in the date of birth has been ordered by the General Manager and according to the corrected date of birth, the petitioner cannot superannuate on 31.1.1997 as mentioned in the aforesaid impugned order dated 16.1.1997. It was further submitted that because of the order of the General Manager, the petitioner cannot be directed to superannuate on 31.1.1997. It was submitted that inadvertently the order of the General Manager has not been carried out to its logical conclusion. It was also submitted that the Chief Security Officer cannot review the order of the General Manager, Northern Railway.

(6) It was also submitted that in these circumstances, the writ petition had to be filed at the last minute because the petitioner was given impugned order a few days ago only. It was also submitted that the petitioner is superannuating on the basis of the impugned order tomorrow and if no interim order is granted, it would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner's seniority and continuity of service is also going to be affected adversely.

(7) The court issued a show cause notice and also granted interim order, as without the interim order, the whole purpose of filing the writ petition would have been vitiated because many complications would have arisen regarding continuity of service, seniority, etc.

(8) In pursuance to the show cause notice, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The averments of the counter- affidavit have changed the entire complexion of the case. In the counter-affidavit, it is submitted that the entire record relating to the petitioner's service has been checked up and no letter i.e. order dated 17.3.79 (Annexure VI) has been issued by respondent no.2, the General Manager, Northern Railways. It is also mentioned that the genuineness, authenticity, validity and the very existence of Annexure Vi is specifically denied and the petitioner be directed to submit the original documents or a carbon copy of this document, which bears the signatures in original of any of the officers of the Northern Railways.

(9) It is also stated that "on the basis of the information as gathered by the deponent from the official records available with the Railway Protection Force, as well as the record available with respondent no.2, namely, General Manager, Northern Railways, no such letter marked Annexure Vi, is available on the official record, and the petitioner be put to strict proof of the same.

(10) Mr. Birbal, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a large number of documents have been annexed with the reply clearly demonstrate that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 21.1.1939. Mr. Birbal has drawn my attention to 18 leave application forms, which were filled in by the petitioner and all the leave applications are from the year 1994 to 1996, in which the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown by him to be 21.1.1939 and the date of superannuation to be 31.1.1997. He has also drawn my attention to Annexure Xii, the application for withdrawal of 90 per cent or part of compulsory deposit as provident fund and interest. In this, he has shown his date of superannuation as 31.1.1997. He has also drawn my attention to R-15, an application for advance for the purchase of the scooter. In this form, he has also mentioned the date of superannuation as 31.1.1997. He has also drawn my attention to the civil suit filed by the petitioner. In that also, the petitioner has shown his date of superannuation as 31.1.1997.

(11) Mr. Birbal submitted that the entire case of the petitioner rests on the edifice of Annexure Vi letter dated 17.3.1979. That letter is fabricated and non-existent. This is also established by the fact that as late as 3.1.1997, when the petitioner 'submitted a representation (Annexure VIII), he had mentioned that "a representation for correction of date of birth is pending decision since February, 1972. If the document dated 17.3.79 would have been in existence, then, perhaps the petitioner would never have mentioned that the representation is pending. Similarly in civil suit, the petitioner would not have mentioned the date of superannuation as 31.1.1997.

(12) In para 12 of the rejoinder, the petitioner mentioned that "It was only on the directions/orders of the respondent dated 17.11.72 that the petitioner has been mentioning his date of birth as 21.1.1939, and the date of superannuation as 31.1.1997.

(13) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, and perused the relevant documents. This court entertained the writ petition and granted interim orders because of the letter dated 17.3.1979, by which the General Manager had allegedly ordered, the correction in the date of birth from 21.1.1939 to 21.1.1941.

(14) In the counter-affidavit, filed by Shri R.D. Chaudhary, Chief Personnel Officer, it is categorically mentioned that the genuineness, authenticity, validity and the very existence of the said letter is specifically denied. The very foundation of the petitioner's case goes when the authenticity, genuineness and existence of this document is denied. In other words, according to the respondent, the document is a fabricated one and the writ petition has to be rejected only on this ground.

(15) Large number of documents which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent clearly show that the petitioner has always been mentioning his date of birth as 21.1.1939 and his date of superannuation as 31.1.1997.

(16) The explanation given by the petitioner that he had been mentioning the date of birth as 21.1.1939 and date of superannuation as 31.1.1997 on the directions and orders of the respondent cannot be accepted.

(17) The petitioner even in the suit which he has filed has also mentioned the date of superannuation as 31.1.1997 and in the representation sent as late as 3.1.1997, he has mentioned the date of superannuation as 31.1.1997. There could not have been any direction by the respondents to mention 31.1.1997 as the date of superannuation in the suit and in the representation filed on 3.1.97.

(18) On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any benefit of serving the respondent after 31.1.1997 under the orders of the court.

(19) The writ petition and the C.Ms.611/97 being devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed with costs.