Delhi High Court
P. Elumalai vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 27 May, 2014
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3458/2014 & CM No. 7080/2014 (Additional documents)
% Date of decision: 27th May, 2014
P. ELUMALAI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Md. Niyazuddin, Adv.
versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS
COMMISSIONER ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The writ petitioner challenges an order dated 30 th April, 2013,
whereby the petitioner's application being OA No. 4310/2012 was
dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi. The writ petitioner contends that he had joined the services of the
respondents on 1st April, 1987 as a Beldar. He retired from services on
superannuation w.e.f. 31st March, 2012.
2. The petitioner made a grievance with regard to a correction in his date
of birth after his retirement by way of filing an O.A. No. 1231/2012. This
application was withdrawn by him on 9th May, 2012 with liberty to approach
the respondent by way of an appropriate representation. The petitioner's
representation dated 30th May, 2012 was not responded to by the respondent.
3. The petitioner filed an OA No. 4310/2012 in Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi praying that the respondent be
directed to rectify the petitioner's date of birth to read as 7th December, 1960
as well as consequential relief of reinstatement of Beldar and arrears of
salary etc.
4. The respondents contested the petition and contended that at the time
of his appointment, the petitioner had given an affidavit dated 7th March,
1988 attested by a Magistrate declaring his date of birth as 12 th March, 1952
(12th day of March one thousand nine hundred fifty two). It was further
stated by the respondents in reply that while joining the service, the
petitioner had appeared before the Resident Medical Superintendent, at the
Lajpat Nagar Hospital (MCD) New Delhi for a medical check up. As per the
Medical Certificate dated 26th April, 1988, the petitioner's date of birth
entered in his record was also 12th March, 1952 which was considered pro
confesso.
5. In the impugned order dated 30th April, 2013, the Tribunal has
extracted additional facts set out in para Nos. 6 to 9 of the counter reply
which refers to the repeated representation of the petitioner depicting that his
date of birth was 12th March, 1952.
6. An effort which was made by the petitioner stating that the affidavit
dated 7th April, 1988 declaring his date of birth as 12th March, 1952 cannot
be accepted for the reason that he was not conversant in the English
language. This was rejected by the Tribunal for the reason that the affidavit
dated 7th April, 1988 was signed by the petitioner in the English language.
7. The Resident Medical Superintendent, Lajpat Nagar Hospital (MCD),
New Delhi has also noted in the Certificate dated 26th April, 1988 that apart
from the petitioner's claim of his age, he appeared to be 36 years old. This
Certificate was formatted in Hindi and the petitioner had to put his
signatures thereon in the English language.
8. Even in the Provident Fund Scheme, while submitting his nomination
papers, the petitioner has marked his signatures in the English language.
This form also noted his date of birth as 12th March, 1952.
9. So far as pleas of alteration of date of birth by a public servant at the
fag end of service i.e. superannuation is concerned, the Tribunal in the
impugned order had made a reference to the following precedents:-
( i) Senior Horticulturist and Anr Vs. Mallaiah [1996 (1) SCSLJ
220]
(ii) Burn Standard Co Ltd. & Ors v.Shri Dinabandhy Majumdar &
Anr, 1995 (1) SCSLJ 574: (JT) 1995 (4) SC 23)
(iii) Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board Vs. E. Atchanna ( 1996
(2) SCC 484),
(iv) Union of India Vs. Ram Suta Sharma ( 1996 (7) SCC 421)
(v) OA No 38/2013 Veena Grover Vs. Steel Authorities of Ltd and
Ors decided on 22.02.2013
(vi) Union of India & Ors. vs. Kanti Lal Hematram Pandya AIR
1995 SC 1339
(vii) U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Prshad and Others versus Raj Kumar
Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465
(viii) State of U.P. and oth-ers v. Gulaichi (Smt), 2003 (6) SCC 483.
(ix) State of Uttaranchal and others v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal,
(2002) 1 UPLBEC 441 SC.
(x) State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302.
(xi) Executive Engineer. Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and others
v. Rangadhar Mallik, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 763.
(xii) Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. M. Hayagreev
Sarma, (1990) 2 SCC 682.
(xiii) Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162.
(xiv) The Secretary & Commissioner. Home Department & Ors. v. R.
Kirubakaran, JT 1993 (5) SC 404.
(xv) State of Maharashtra & Another versus Gorakhnath Sitaram
Kamble & Others [2010 (13) SCALE 355
(xvi) State of Tamil Nandu Vs. T.V.Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC
In these precedents, belated requests for change of date ought not to
be rejected.
10. Placing reliance on all these judgments as well as detailed
consideration of the facts, the Tribunal has held that the belated request of
the petitioner for correction in his date of birth, 25 years after joining of
services was legally impermissible and has rejected the same.
11. We see no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
The writ petition and the application being devoid of legal merits are hereby
dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
MAY 27, 2014/j
