NARAYAN SINGH JAGWAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

(2.) The respondent no. 3 filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. He, in his counter affidavit, has submitted that at the time of entering the service, the petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 22.12.1948. The respondent no. 3, after the retirement of the petitioner, for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits, enquired about the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a certificate in which details of his dependants and their date of birth was mentioned. In the date of birth of the petitioner, some interpolation was found which created doubt and the respondents enquired into the matter. It was also found that if the date of birth of the petitioner stated in the Family Register is considered, then in that event, the petitioner has worked 8 years in excess, therefore, a First Information Report was registered on 25.04.2003. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that the question of date of birth involves disputed question of fact, which cannot be dealt with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. In paragraph 4 & 5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 3, it is mentioned that the respondent no. 3 also asked the Village Development Officer, Tilwara to supply a copy of the Family Register mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner, so that the pensionary benefits may be computed in favour of the petitioner. The date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the copy of the Family Register was shown as 1936. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that since the respondents have evidence regarding date of birth of the petitioner in the year 1936, no retiral dues can be paid to the petitioner. Paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the counter affidavit are being reproduced below:

(3.) In his additional counter affidavit, the respondent no. 3 has admitted that at the time of entering the service, the date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 22.12.1948. It is also admitted in the additional counter affidavit that on 06.09.2002, the petitioner wrote to the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, Rudraprayag, annexing a copy of the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Sandar for correction of date of birth. In the said certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 22.12.1944. On the basis of the letter written by the petitioner and certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Sandar, the documents regarding date of birth was corrected. It is also mentioned in the additional counter affidavit that after the retirement of the petitioner, the Gram Vikas Adhikari, Tilwara issued date of birth certificate on 18.01.2003, in which the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 1936. Thus, the respondents came to the conclusion that petitioner had played fraud with the department and submitted a forged date of birth certificate at the time of induction in service and due to this reason, the post retiral dues of the petitioner have not been released. The petitioner also submitted medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer in the year 1991, in which the age of the petitioner was shown as 48 years. The respondent no. 3, in his additional counter affidavit, further submitted that the alleged certificate of the Chief Medical Officer cannot be relied upon and the Jal Nigam is not liable to pay any pension, gratuity or provident fund to the petitioner, as he has not completed the qualifying service and has worked 8 years in excess.