UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1252/1992 on 29th of May, 1992, allowing an application filed by the respondent and directing the petitioner herein to correct the date of birth of the respondent in the service record and not to retire him before 30th of April, 1996, the petitioner-Union of India has filed this special leave petition.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) The respondent joined Government service in the Ministry of Finance (Defence) in class IV post as, a peon on 22nd of February, 1956. At the time of entry into the Government service, his service-book was prepared and the date of birth was recorded as 20th of May, 1934 and since he failed in the matriculation examination, against the column of educational qualification 'matric failed' was recorded. It appears that the respondent later on again appeared in the matriculation examination of the Punjab University under Roll No. 21653 and passed the said examination in May, 1956. On passing the matriculation examination, the respondent was appointed as LDC in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 9-5-1957. In the service-book of the respondent, an entry was, accordingly, made showing his educational qualification as matric (Punjab University, Roll No. 21653, year 1956). This entry was made underneath the earlier entry "matric failed" and the changed entry was signed by the SO of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 7-9-1957. Though, the date of birth of the respondent, as recorded in the matriculation certificate is 7-4-1938 but while amending the entry about his educational qualification, the entry relating to his date of birth was not altered to correspond to the date given in the matriculation certificate and it continued to be recorded as 20th of May, 1934. In 1963, the respondent was transferred to the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education. On being notified about his date of superannuation as 31-5-1992, the respondent realised that he was being retired on the basis of his date of birth as originally recorded in the service-record as 20-5-1934, ignoring the date of birth as reflected in the matriculation certificate. He made a representation in September 1991 for the alteration of his date of birth but the same was rejected on 4-12-1991. He submitted yet another representation on 3-1-1992, wherein a request was made, to consider his case for the correction of date of birth afresh on the basis of the date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate. The request of the respondent was turned down vide O.M. dated 29-1-1992. The respondent submitted yet another representation on 26-3-1992, wherein he asserted that he had submitted the matriculation certificate on 4-9-1957, when the entry about his educational qualification was altered and that thereafter since he did not bear anything to the contrary, he presumed that the appellants had also corrected his date of birth in the service book. While making that representation, the respondent had also drawn attention of the Department to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of one Darshan Singh, wherein the Department had been directed by the Principal Bench of CAT to correct the date of birth of Darshan Singh on the basis of the date of birth given in the matriculation certificate and it was submitted that his date of birth should also be corrected on the basis of the matriculation certificate. That representation was rejected on 22-4-1992 by an order which reads thus: