S.GHOUSUNNIA, KONDAPURAM (PO), KADAPA DISTRICT V. UNION OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SEC-BAD AND2 OTHERS

WP/13947/2006

AI Insights

The case revolves around a petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision, which denied the petitioner's request to change her recorded date of birth from 01.04.1945 to 02.06.1951. The petitioner argued that her date of birth was initially recorded as 02.06.1951 based on her transfer certificate at the time of her husband's death in service, and subsequent employment records supported this date until it was changed back to 01.04.1945 in 2004. The Tribunal dismissed her application, leading to this writ petition. The court's decision emphasized adherence to the recorded date of birth in official documents and the procedural rules governing such changes, which are not typically allowed after significant delays.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 723436 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: The Accountant General, Nagpur, Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Sri P.K.Sinha, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad, State of UP v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, Burn Standard & Co. v. Dinabandhu Mazumdar
• Laws Referred To: General Conditions of Service
• Result in Favour of: Respondent
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: HARINATH
• Assessee Lawyers: K R K V PRASAD
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Superannuation; Writ petition; Date of birth alteration
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

" THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS W.P.No.13947 of 2006 ORDER: [per Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Ganga Rao] This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in OA.No.367 of 2005, wherein and whereby the claim of the petitioner – applicant for altering her date of birth from 01.04.1945 to 02.06.1951 and continue her till age of superannuation 30.06.2011, was rejected, as being illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was appointed as substitute Safaiwala in Operating department vide Memorandum No.G/P.564/CG dated 14/18.03.1977 on the demise of her husband S.Ali Saheb, in harness, while he was working as Gangman in Guntakal division. Her claim is that in the appointment letter, her date of birth was recorded as 02.06.1951, based on the transfer certificate produced by her, which was verified by the authorities at the time of her appointment. She submitted a representation on 18.09.2001 to the 3rd respondent to correct her date of birth. The 3rd respondent after verification of the records corrected the date of birth as 02.06.1951. In support of her contention, she enclosed the pay slip for the month of September, 2002 2 WP_13947_2006 MGR,J&SV,J (Annexure V) wherein the date of birth of the applicant was mentioned as 02.06.1951. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued letter dated 06.11.2003 along with the list of staff retiring during the year 2005 and in the said list the applicant’s name was also included showing her date of birth as 01.04.1945 and date of retirement as 31.03.2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed OA.No.367 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad. The Tribunal, after adjudicating the issues raised in the said OA dismissed the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri K.R.K.V Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner – applicant and Sri Harinath N. learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that at the time of petitioner’s appointment, in the appointment letter, her date of birth was mentioned as 02.06.1951. The date of birth mentioned in the appointment letter has to be continued till the date of retirement. The employer has no authority to change the same without notice to the employee. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in WP.No.4852 of 2005 dated 22.03.2005 [between The Accountant General, Nagpur, Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Sri P.K.Sinha, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad] in support of 3 WP_13947_2006 MGR,J&SV,J the submission that the documents called for by the 3rd respondent were not considered. The petitioner was forced to retire on 31.03.2005 and informed the petitioner by letter dated 30.03.2005 that her case was referred to the Headquarters and after careful examination of her case the competent authority has not agreed for the change of her date of birth and therefore the date of birth recorded in the service register as 01.04.1945 is authenticated one and would be taken into consideration for all purposes. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of OA. 5. Sri Harinath. N, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the respondents would contend that it is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed vide memorandum No.G/P.564/CG, dated 14/18-03-1977 and the date of birth of the applicant was mentioned in the appointment letter as 02.06.1951. The date of birth of the applicant was recorded in her service register as 01.04.1945. The signature of OS is there in the column of the witness and the thumb impression of the applicant is also there. The service book was opened in the year 1978 and the date of birth was recorded on the basis of medical certificate issued by the AMO/S.Rly/Guntakal, dated 05.01.1977, which is available in the record. No doubt in the pay slip for the month of September, 2002 and December, 2003 the date of birth of the applicant was mentioned as 02.06.1951, based on her representation. The 4 WP_13947_2006 MGR,J&SV,J same is continued in the pay slips till July, 2004. But in the pay slip of October, 2004, her date of birth was again changed as 01.04.1945. Therefore, the applicant was aware of the change of date of birth from October, 2004 and the same was not questioned by the applicant before the appropriate authority. Based on the said date of birth, she was asked to retire on 31.03.2005. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of UP v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (2005 SCC (L&S) 794), wherein it is held that normally, in public service, while entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as the date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed; that is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service book relating to the individual concerned because every service has fixed the age of retirement and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records; it is for this reason most of the States have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth in the service record is to be dealt with and what procedure is to be followed. It is also observed that in many such rules a period has been prescribed within which if any public servant makes any grievance in respect of error in the recording of his date of birth, the application for that purpose can be entertained. It is, therefore, said that the sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. Hence, petitioner’s 5 WP_13947_2006 MGR,J&SV,J claim for change of date of birth at the verge of the retirement cannot be considered. In the case of Accountant General [supra] relied upon by the applicant, the authority could not produce any document on the basis of which the date of birth was recorded but in the present case, date of birth was recorded on the basis of the medical certificate issued by the AMO, Southern Railway, Guntakal. Therefore, the said case is no way helpful to the applicant. Learned Deputy Solicitor General further placed his reliance on the General Conditions of Service. 6. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of both the counsel and perused the record. It is apposite to extract the relevant General Conditions of Service, which read as under: “6. The date of birth as recorded in accordance with these rules shall be held to be binding and no alteration of such date shall ordinarily be permitted subsequently. It shall, however, be open to the President in the case of Group A & B Railway servant, and a General Manager in the case of a Group C & D Railway servant to cause the date of birth to be altered. (i) Where in his opinion it had been falsely stated by the railway servant to obtain an advantage otherwise inadmissible, provided that such alteration shall not result in the Railway servant being retained in service longer than if the alteration had not been made, or (ii) Where, in the case of illiterate staff, the General Manager is satisfied that a clerical error has occurred; or (iii) Where a satisfactory explanation (which should not be entertained after completion of the probation period, or three years 6 WP_13947_2006 MGR,J&SV,J service, whichever is earlier) of the circumstances in which the wrong date came to be entered is furnished by the Railway servant concerned together with the statement of any previous attempt made to have the record added. As one time exception to the time limits laid down above, the Railway employees in service on 3.12.1971 were allowed to represent their cases for alteration in the recorded date of birth latest by 31.07.1973. After 31.07.1973, no request for alteration in the recorded date of birth can be entertained if it has not been submitted before completion of the probation period or three years service whichever is earlier.” [Emphasis supplied] 7. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the date of birth of the applicant who joined service in the year 1977 was recorded in the service book as 01.04.1945 in the year 1978 and the recorded date of birth had undergone change in 2001 and 2004 i.e., after more than two decades and the Apex Court in Burn Standard & Co. v. Dinabandhu Mazumdar [1995(4) SLR 25 (SC)] deprecated entertaining of writ petition for correction of age at the fag end of the career. Admittedly the said changes were made after more than two decades. In view of the General Conditions of Service referred supra, no request for alteration in the recorded date of birth can be entertained if it has not been submitted before completion of the probation period or three years service whichever is earlier. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim for change of date of birth. Since this Court does not find any error of 7 WP_13947_2006 MGR,J&SV,J fact and law apparent on the face of the record or patent perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal, which warrants interference of this Court, , we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ M.GANGA RAO, J _________________ V. SRINIVAS, J 21.11.2022 Vjl 8 WP_13947_2006 MGR,J&SV,J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS W.P.No13947 of 2006 [per MGR,J] 21.11.2022 Vjl "