DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. JIWAN KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff was working as a senior clerk in the Delhi Transport Corporation when he was informed by an order dated January 29, 1975 that he shall be retired with effect from June 30, 1975 having by then attained the age of 58 years. He filed the present suit on June 28, 1975 for declaration that his date of birth was June 19, 1927 and not June 19, 1917 and that he will superannuate in 1985, for quashing of the said order and for restraining the defendant Corporation from retiring him before June 30, 1985. The suit was decreed by the court of the first instance and the court of the first appeal. Hence, this second appeal by the Corporation.

(2.) The facts appear to be that the plaintiff respondent joined the Gwalior Northern India Transport Company in June 1947 as a conductor. His services were first transferred to the Delhi Transport Service a Central Government Department in terms of an agreement dated April 23, 1948 between the said transport company and the Central Government. Later on upon the constitution of the Delhi Road Transport Authority on April 1, 1950, his services were transferred to that Authority. He passed his matriculation in 1951. His service register Ex. Public Witness 1/10 was prepared on June 24, 1952 which bears his signatures against the column 'Signature of Employee'' and also his left thumb impression taken on that date. In the column relating to date of birth what was entered in June 19, 1917. In the column relating to educational qualification the entry is 'Passed matric in 1951'. The service register further shows that one E. Sha- lome the then Traffic Superintendent on March 10, 1955, scored 1917' and inserted 1927' in the column relating to date of birth. That alteration is the bone of contention. The services of the plaintiff then were transferred to the Delhi Transport Undertaking of the .Delhi Municipal Corporation in 1958 and to the Road Transport Corporation in 1971. He was also sent up for medical examination and the doctor assessed his age at 50 years on June 13, 1975.

(3.) The respondent succeeded in justifying his claim in the lower courts on the basis of Regulation 8 of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952. But these Regulations came into force on September 1, 1952 that is two months after the service sheet was prepared and was signed and marked by the respondent in June 1952. May it be noted that the service sheet itself was prepared a year after he received his matric certificate. The said Regulation stipulates that the record of service of every employee shall be maintaind in the prescribed manner which it is said has not yet been prescribed, The date of birth contained in the record of service shall be that recorded in the matriculation certificate. In cases in which matriculation examination or its equivalent is not passed, the date of birth shall be proved by documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the appointing authority. Though the original is not on record but the copy of the matriculation certificate of the Punjab University shows that the plamtiff-respondent passed the examination held in March 1951 of which the said certificate was issued on June 10, 1951. It no doubt shows his date of birth as June 19, 1927. I may state, however, that the date given in the certificate is no necessarily the date on which the employee is born. It is a mode of proof of such date generally accepted in almost all the establishments in India. If the employee has given an earlier date, then he is bound by it unless he proves that there has been a mistake. Regulation 8 does not mean to supersede an actual date by the date given in the matriculation certificate. The courts below were wrong in holding otherwise.