Rabindra Singh @ Ravindra Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 154 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               W.P.(S) No. 3299 of 2017
     Rabindra Singh @ Ravindra Singh                            --- --- Petitioner
                                Versus
     1.The Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) through Chief
       Executive officer, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro
     2.The Executive Director, (Personnel and Administration), Steel
       Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro
                                                        --- --- Respondents
                                      .......

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Through Video Conferencing For the Petitioner : M/s Ritu Kumar, Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Dipankar Roy, Advocate

06/12.01.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent SAIL.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2016 passed in O.A. No. 051/00001/2016 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi (Annexure-9), the applicant/ petitioner herein has preferred this writ petition. Applicant had approached the learned CAT in the year 2016 i.e., the year of his superannuation with a prayer to rectify the entry of date of birth in his service records as 19.07.1962 in place of 12.01.1956. The applicant also prayed for consequential benefits upon correction of his date of birth entry in his service record and to allow him to continue in service till 30.07.2022. He has also made a prayer for direction upon the respondents to take proper decision on his representation dated 21.01.2013 for correction of his date of birth.

3. As per the applicant, he had completed matriculation in the year 1980 as per the certificate issued by the CBSE (Annexure-2) wherein the date of birth is shown as 19.07.1962. In his admit card in the intermediate examination also his date of birth is recorded as 19.07.1962 (Annexure-3). His PAN Card also bore the same date of birth. According to the applicant the respondent authorities unilaterally changed his date of birth. He represented in 1993 and again on 21.10.2013 (Anexure-5 series) but without any result. Since the matriculation certificate is conclusive proof of date of birth and he had passed matriculation before entering in service, the date of birth entered in the service record ought to be corrected.

4. Respondents in their written statement contended that the applicant filled date of birth as 12.01.1956 in triplicate copy of personal data in his own handwriting. In the medical examination conducted in 1982 his age is mentioned as 26 years which corresponds to the year of

birth i.e., 1956(Annexure-R/1 thereto). Further in the application for revalidation of medical books submitted by the applicant in the year 1989 his date of birth is mentioned as 12.01.1956. Again in the year 2001 in the application for revalidation of medical book submitted by him, same date of birth is mentioned in his own handwriting. In the LTC form submitted in the year 1998 he had mentioned his age as 42 years in his own hand writing, which corresponds to the year of birth as 1956. Further the application filed in LTC by the applicant on 29.05.2007 his age has been mentioned as 51 years which corresponds to the year 1956. Respondents have also contended that at the time of joining the applicant gave the particulars of his previous experience where he stated that he was Fireman in TISCO from 01.03.1974 to 03.04.1977. According to the respondents, if date of birth of the applicant is reckoned from 19.07.1962, he would be 12 years when he joined as Fireman in TISCO, which is impossible. Respondents had relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vrs. Harnam Singh [1993 AIR 1367 SC]. It was contended that any representation of applicant made for change of date of birth beyond the prescribed time limit cannot be entertained for valid reasons.

5. Applicant in his rejoinder had reiterated the grounds taken in the OA and also enclosed two documents namely the seniority list dated 20.07.2011 and the appointment letter. Learned Tribunal considering the materials on record in its entirety came to the following conclusion:

"13. Even if it is accepted that the applicant approached the respondent authorities in 1993, that was at least ten years after his retirement. The respondents have denied having received any such application. The documents submitted by the applicant at Annexure 5 series do not bear any receipt of the office, therefore, these documents are not reliable and we are inclined to hold that no such representation was given to the authorities in 1993 for change of date of birth and such prayer started only on the verge of retirement.

14. The applicant's learned counsel submitted that the date of birth as entered in the matriculation certificate has to be taken as conclusive proof, therefore, even on the verge of retirement such error can be corrected. He cited two judgments in his support.

(i) LPA No. 456 of 2005 order dated 16.2.2016 of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Anand Singh. This was a case in which the respondent authorities changed the date of birth recorded in the service book and issued order of retirement with retrospective

effect. This case is not relevant to the present case, as in this case, the applicant is seeking to change of his date of birth.

(ii) Jharkhand High Court Full Bench in WP(s) no. 1193 of 2004 order dated 08.08.2007 in W.P.[s) No. 1193 of 2004 in the matter of Kamta Pandey versus M/s BCCL. In that case, the applicant had passed the matriculation examination in the year 1968 and he joined the BCCL after three years. In several documents his date of birth was recorded as 1.07.1951 on the basis of matriculation certificate and, therefore, it was held that the entry in the service records of date of birth as 16.07.1948 was erroneous. The facts in the present case are very different. In the present we find from a number of documents filled and signed by the applicant himself that he has mentioned his date of birth as 12th January, 1956 For example, Annexure-R/1 is Interview Particular Form dated 21.10.1982 in which the applicant has mentioned his date of birth as 12th January, 1956 and age as 26 years 9 months and 9 days. In this form he has mentioned his working experience in TISCO from 1974 to 1977. It is impossible that a child of 12 years can be appointed as Fireman. Therefore, the applicant's claim to been born in 1952 is not acceptable.

15. Annexure R-2 is the detail of family submitted by the applicant in 1997 for medical card in which he has mentioned his date of birth as 12.01.1956. Further in 2001 he submitted an application for revalidation of medical books in which he has mentioned his date of birth as 12.01.1956. In 1998 in the LTC form he has mentioned his age as 42 years and in 2007 he has mentioned his age as 51 years (Annexure-R/4 and R/5), which establish his date of birth as 1956 as per his own admission. This negates the applicant's contention that he has been agitating the matter with the authorities for correction of his date of birth. The applicant might have created some documents in parallel showing his date of birth as 1962, but on that basis the cannot be allowed to claim six more years of service on the verge of retirement.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court have conclusively settled the law on the change of birth in several judicial pronouncements. In Union of India vs. Harnam Singh, AIR 1993 SC 167, when the employee entered in the government service, his date of birth was recorded as 20th May, 1934. Later he passed matriculation examination in which his date of birth was recorded as 07.05.1938. Though the entry about his qualification was corrected, the date of birth was not altered to correspond to the date given in the matriculation certificate. The employee's representations were rejected. However, the Tribunal accepted his plea and directed the authorities to change his date of birth to 7.4.1938. This matter travelled up to the

Hon'ble Supreme Court which set aside the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the employee had several occasions to see his service book for almost three and a half decades and he did not seek correction of date of birth during the period of five years prescribed under the rules. The present case is identical in the sense that for more than two decades the applicant in several documents signed by him mentioned his date of birth as 12.01.1956.

17. In conclusion, the OA is without merit, hence dismissed with no order as to costs."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entries in the personal data form regarding his date of birth show the cutting from 19.07.1962 to 12.01.1956. Further he had not filled up any details of his previous experience in TISCO as alleged in the interview particular form. Such statement has been denied by him. It is further submitted that the petitioner persisted with the authorities to make correction in his date of birth entry by making representation from time to time in 1993 and again in 2013. Only when his grievances were not redressed he was compelled to approach the learned CAT in 2016. Before that applicant had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 474 of 2014 (Annexure-6), which was disposed of vide order dated 18.08.2015 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned CAT as the cause of action lied within the jurisdiction of learned CAT. Learned Tribunal has not considered the decision of the full bench of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vrs. M/s BCCL [2007 (3) JCR 681 (fb)]. A grave injustice has been caused to the applicant by manipulating his service record regarding his date of birth entry at the hands of the respondent authorities. The service records were not in custody of the applicant, therefore, manipulation has entailed adverse civil consequences upon him. The impugned order therefore deserves to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the plea taken by them before the learned CAT and the conclusion drawn by the learned CAT in the impugned order. He submits that in the first place applicant had approached the learned Tribunal on the verge of his superannuation in January 2016, as per the date of birth entry recorded in his service book i.e., 12.01.1956. In all documents i.e., medical examination report of 1982, revalidation of medical book in the year 1989 and in 2001 and LTC form submitted by him in 1998 and 2007, applicant had consciously entered his age and date of birth corresponding to the year 1956. Moreover, the details of his previous experience while working as

Fireman in TISCO from 01.03.1974 to 03.04.1977 if treated to be correct, he would be only 12 years of age reckoning his date of birth from 19.07.1962, which is not possible. Therefore, the learned Tribunal refused to interfere on valid grounds. The writ petition is without merit and may be dismissed.

8. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken into account the relevant material facts on record. We have also perused the impugned order. The applicant / petitioner herein has sought correction in his date of birth entry as 19.07.1962 by approaching first in this Court in the year 2014 and then before the learned Tribunal in 2016 on the verge of his retirement. If the applicant had passed matriculation examination in the year 1980 and service record reflected incorrect date of birth entry as 12.01.1956 when he entered service in the year 1982, applicant was expected to seek correction in his date of birth within the prescribed period and not wait till the verge of retirement. In all the relevant documents evidenced herein above, such as the medical report of 1982, application form for revalidation of medical book submitted by the applicant in the year 1989 and 2001 and also LTC form submitted in the year 1998 and 2007, he has shown his age and date of birth corresponding to the year 1956. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal rightly refused to interfere in the matter relying upon the decision in the case of Harnam Singh (supra). Such belated attempt for correction of date of birth entry by the employee at the verge of his retirement has been deprecated by the Apex Court. This has effect on the service career of other personal / employee of the organization such as promotional avenues etc. There is no reason why the employee who was aware of incorrect date of birth entry in his service record since last three decades chose to sit over the matter and approached the Court only when his superannuation was impending. The case of Kamta Pandey (supra) is distinguishable on facts since in the said case the applicant had passed the matriculation examination in the year 1968 and had joined BCCL after three years and in several documents his date of birth was recorded on the basis of the matriculation certificate. Therefore, it was held that the wrong entry of 16.07.1948 contrary to the matriculation certificate in his service record ought to be corrected. The facts of the case show that applicant despite

claiming to have passed the matriculation examination in 1980 chose to fill up the personal data form and other service records like application for revalidation of medical book, LTC form etc. showing his age corresponding to the year 1956. In such circumstances, we do not find any legal or factual flaw in the impugned order, which can be interfered in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. I.A. No. 6339 of 2020 seeking removal of defect no. 6 is allowed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

A.Mohanty