SHAUKAT ALL Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this Writ Petition is whether thepetitioner is entitled to the change of date of birth on the basis of schoolleaving certificate. The petitioner was recruited as a Peon with the respondent son 7.7.1953 and his age was recorded as thirty years. In 1964 the respondents issued a general circular calling upon those employees who alleged thattheir date of birth was wrongly .recorded to appear for the medical examination. The petitioner states that he did not get a copy of the circular butlateron pursuant to a subsequent letter he was examined medically. TheMedical Board opined that his date of birth was 24.5.1924. In the subsequent seniority list the date of birth of 1924 was shown. Actually there isamistake. Instead of 24.5.1924 the date of birth recorded in the senioritylist was 24.11.1924. The counsel for the respondents stales that although thepetitioner had the knowledge of the alleged incorrect recording of the dateof birth, be did not take any action, however, on the eve of his retirementwhich was to come up on 31.5.1982 he fileda School Leaving Certificatefrom the Head Master, Urdu Medium Primary School, Village Kamalpur,District Bulandshahar (U.P.) in which the recorded date of birth is 4.7.1937.

(2.) The counsel for the respondents submits that the School LeavingCertificate submitted after the long lapse and on the eve of retirement shouldnot be accepted. During the course of the hearing I directed the respondentsto ascertain whether the certificate produced by the petitioner was genuine ornot. The respondent have made the inquiries and have found that thecertificate was genuine. On these facts the question is whether the petitioner's date of birth should or should not be corrected on the basis of thegenuine school leaving certificate only because it has been filed after the longtime. The facts of this case. do not show that the alleged delay is so fatal.It has been held in some cases that the delay creates a suspicion in regard togenuineness of the certificate produced at the later stage. But that is not acase here. About the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate there isno doubt. The respondents have also admitted this. I do not think that itwould be power or just to reject the said School Leaving Certificate as itwould cause serious prejudice to the petitioner by loss of seven years ofservice affecting his pension and other benefits. I hold that the SchoolLeaving Certificate is genuine and, therefore, the date of birth is 4.7.1937.

(3.) During the course of the arguments of this petition the petitionerdied and his heirs are brought on record. The legal heirs would be entitledto all the consequential reliefs which the petitioner would have got on thebasis of the date of birth as 4.7.1937. The respondents are directed to workout all the consequential benefits in terms of salary for the additional periodpension and gratuity worked out on the basis of the new salary that wouldbe fixed after passing the consequential order.