Orissa High Court
Ganapati Dakua vs State Of Odisha And Others on 10 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 9 of 2019
Ganapati Dakua .... Appellant
M/s. Debaraj Mohanty, Advocate & Associates
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Additional Government Advocate
Mr. Subrat Satpathy, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
10.11.2022
Order No.
03. 1. The present writ appeal has been filed challenging an order dated
14th December, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing
of W.P.(C) No.19214 of 2018 filed by the present Appellant,
questioning an order dated 29th September, 2018 passed by the
Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries Limited recalling an earlier
order dated 9th August, 2018 whereby the Date of Birth of the
Appellant was changed to 17th February, 1963 from 24th October,
1958. The learned Single Judge has in the impugned order observed
that since there was a dispute as regards the Appellant's date of
birth, it was open to the Appellant "to approach the Civil Court to
establish his correct date of birth so as to get the benefit in
accordance with law".
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that it is
only after verifying the School Register that Respondent No.2-
Society issued the office order dated 9th August, 2018 which stated
that for all purposes of service, as per the School Leaving
Certificate (SLC) submitted by the Appellant, the date of birth
stood changed to "17.02.1963". Therefore, according to the
Appellant, notwithstanding that he may not have produced the
original SLC, with the Respondent No.2 having verified the School
Register on the basis of the duplicate SLC and noting that the
correct date of birth was 17.02.1963, there was no reason to
withdraw that order and maintain the earlier date of birth of
24.10.1958.
3. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Shankar Lal v. Hindustan
Copper Ltd. (2022) 6 SCC 211 to urge that the principles of natural
justice ought to be adhered to before effecting a change in date of
birth and that the Appellant should have been given an opportunity
of being heard prior to the impugned order dated 29th September,
2018 being passed.
4. In the present case, the Court finds that to begin with the
Appellant did not produce the SLC on the basis of which he was
claiming his date of birth to be 17.02.1963. A perusal of the office
order dated 29th September, 2018 reveals that after repeated
requests to the Appellant to produce the original SLC were not
complied with, then it was construed that he had no valid SLC with
him and it was decided to constitute a Medical Board for
determining his age. The Appellant then went before the Medical
Board which determined his date of birth to be 24.10.1958. This
happened some time in 2014. After waiting for more than a year
thereafter, on 2nd November, 2015 the Appellant made a
representation without making any reference to the determination
by the Medical Board but relying on a duplicate copy of the SLC
and some EPF slips which mentioned his date of birth to be
17.02.1963.
5. It is on these representations that initially an order was issued on
9th August, 2018 by the Respondent No.2 correcting his date of
birth as 17.02.1963.
6. It appears that subsequently it was realized the above change had
been effected on the basis of a duplicate SLC, which was contrary
to the age determined by the Medical Board. It is in those
circumstances that Respondent No.2 restored the earlier date of
birth, i.e., 24.10.1958 and on that basis on 29th September, 2018
issued an office order that the Appellant had attained the age of
superannuation on that date.
7. It is indeed well settled that issues concerning the date of birth,
particularly, those raised closer to the time of retirement ought not
to be settled without an authoritative pronouncement of a Civil
Court. These are disputed questions, particularly, since the original
of the SLC, which was perhaps the most reliable document, was not
available to the Appellant. It may be noticed here that according to
the Appellant, he misplaced the original SLC but was unable to
inform the Court when he misplaced it and whether he lodged an
FIR regarding losing of the original SLC.
8. Be that as it may, since there is a dispute concerning the
Appellant's date of birth, in the absence of the original SLC, the
only proper course was for the dispute to be settled through the
Civil Court. The facts in Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.,
(supra) reveal that the dispute was raised there long before the
claimed date of retirement of the Appellant. The facts therefore
distinguishable. Here the Appellant had sufficient opportunity to
demonstrate his actual date of birth. Since he failed to produce the
original SLC, he went before the Medical Board which gave a
determination of his date of birth to be 24.10.1958. In these
circumstances, the Appellant cannot in the present case complain of
such determination having been made behind the Appellant's back.
He was always aware of the Medical Board's determination of his
date of birth as 24.10.1958.
9. Consequently, the Court is unable to find any error having been
committed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the
present writ appeal and it is dismissed as such.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. Behera
