Delhi High Court
Director Of Education & Anr. vs Raj Rani on 24 April, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% W.P.(C) 2162/2007
+ Date of Decision: 24th April, 2012
# DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR. ....Petitioners
! Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat & Mr. Nitesh
Kumar Singh, Advocates
Versus
$ RAJ RANI ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Ranjan Verma, Advocate
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL)
The petitioners in this writ petition challenge the Award dated
28th February, 2006 passed by the labour Court in ID No. 310/1999
whereby the reference made to it by the appropriate Government in
respect of the industrial dispute raised by the respondent-workman
that her services had been illegally terminated by her employer,
petitioner no. 1 herein, while she was posted as a waterwoman at
Sarvodya Vidyalaya in Naraina Vihar, respondent no. 2, which is run
by petitioner no. 1, by prematurely retiring her from service was
decided against the petitioners.
2. The respondent-workman was employed at Sarvodaya
Vidyalaya, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi which was under the control of
Director of Education, Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi, as a part time employee in the year 1972. She was regularized
on 14th July, 1988. After her regularization the respondent was got
medically examined to ascertain her age as she herself had no proof of
her age at that time and on the basis of the medical report her date of
birth was recorded in her service record as 1st September, 1938. The
respondent-workman had informed the management vide her letter
dated 14th September, 1988 that her date of birth could be accepted as
1st September, 1938. Accordingly her date of birth was recorded in her
service record as 1st September, 1938. However, in the year 1995, the
respondent-workman wrote to the management that her date of birth
had been tentatively recorded as 1st September, 1938 and so she
requested the petitioners for treating her date of birth as 22nd June,
1943 as was recorded in her school leaving certificate issued by
Sardarni Sada Kaur Khalsa Girls Senior Secondary School, Darya
Ganj, New Delhi. She had enclosed that certificate with her written
application dated 20th January, 1995 for change of her date of birth.
Vide letter dated 8th May, 1995 the respondent-workman was
informed by petitioner no. 1 that the Competent Authority had
considered her request and had rejected it.
3. The respondent-workman was retired from service on attaining
the age of superannuation on the basis of her date of birth as 1 st
September, 1938. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-workman raised
an industrial dispute which in due course came to be referred to the
labour Court for adjudication. Before the labour Court she filed her
statement of claim in which she stated that she had been illegally
retired from service by treating her date of birth as 1 st September,
1938 while in fact her correct date of birth was 22nd June, 1943 as per
the school certificate procured by her.
4. The management had contested the claim of the respondent-
workman inter alia on the ground that she had been rightly retired
from service by treating her date of birth as 1st September, 1938 which
was based on her medical examination and which was accepted also
by her. It was also claimed that her request for change of birth in
service record was rejected as she had produced a certificate of a
private school at a very late stage and, therefore, the same could not be
considered as a genuine proof and so the same was rejected by the
Competent Authority.
5. The learned labour Court after examining the evidence adduced
by the parties came to the conclusion that the respondent-workman
was illegally retired from service by treating her date of birth as 1 st
September, 1938. It was observed that since no enquiry had been
conducted by the management from the concerned school which had
issued the age certificate submitted by the workman it could not be
said that that certificate was not a genuine certificate and the
management, in fact, should got school leaving certificate verified and
only then should have decided request of the workman. Consequently,
rejecting the management's case that workman's date of birth was 1 st
September, 1938 on the basis of her medical examination, the labour
Court came to the conclusion that the services of the workman had
been terminated illegally and unauthorizedly by way of her premature
superannuation. The Award was accordingly passed in her favour
directing that she was entitled to be treated in service till the age of her
superannuation by treating her date of birth to be 22 nd June, 1943 as
mentioned in the school leaving certificate produced by her and all
consequential benefits were ordered to be given to her.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition was filed by the
petitioners.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that
the respondent-workman's request for change of date of birth in the
service record was made beyond the period of 5 years from the date of
her regularization, as provided under FR 56(M) and therefore, her
request for changing her date of birth in her service record could not
be accepted and had been rightly rejected. However, while making this
submission, learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the fact
that respondent-workman did have a right to apply for correction of
her date of birth. She also argued that such a request could be made
by her only within a period of 5 years from her initial appointment as a
regular employee.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited one decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India Vs. Harnam
Singh", (1993) 2 SCC 162 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that in case there are rules applicable to the concerned
employee in respect of correction of date of birth then any employee
desirous of having his/her date of birth in the service record corrected
can make a request as per the rules and when there are no rules for
making such a request then it has to be made within a reasonable
period from the date of appointment. She also cited two decisions of
this Court in "Mahipal Vs. Union of India and Others" WP(C) No.
15144/2000 decided on 27-07-06 and "Brigadier Ashok Kumar
Singh Vs. Union of India & Others", 132 (2006) DLT 64.
9. In my view, as far as the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners
that the request made by the respondent-workman for making
correction in her date of birth in the service record was rejected
because it had been made highly belatedly is concerned, the same
cannot be accepted since that was not the reason given by the
management in its letter dated 8-5-1998 whereby this respondent was
informed that her request was rejected. As noticed already, it was also
the plea raised in the written statement that the school certificate
produced by the respondent-workman could not be considered to be a
genuine proof because it had been produced at a late stage and that too
from a private school. As also noticed already, the labour Court had
observed in the impugned Award that the management had not got the
genuineness of the school certificate verified by making any enquiries
and therefore, the same could not be rejected as being not genuine. I
find this there is no perversity in that reasoning of the learned labour
Court justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. This was also not the reason communicated to the
respondent in the letter dated 8th May, 1998 written to her informing
her that her request for correction of date of birth in service record had
been rejected and for that reason also this plea cannot be accepted. In
fact, no reason whatsoever was communicated to her for the rejection
of her request for correcting her date of birth.
10. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
P.K. BHASIN, J
APRIL 24, 2012/pg
