S K SIMPI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner who was serving as Under Secretary to Government, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to change his date of birth from 4-3-1936 to 14-5-1938 and to give all service benefits as would accrue to him.

(2.) . In order to understand the grievances of the petitioner, certain facts are required to be stated. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk with effect from 15-6-1959 in the erstwhile Bombay State. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted the certificate of his age, nationality and domicile etc. issued by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 14-5-1938. Apart from this the certificate, it appears that the petitioner also produced Secondary School Certificate wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 4-3-1936. On the basis of the Secondary School Certificate, in the service record, his date of birth was recorded as 4-3-1936.

(3.) . The petitioner, for the first time moved the respondent-authorities on 6-7-1990 stating that his date of birth is wrongly recorded in the Secondary School Certificate as 4-3-1936. The petitioner submitted a copy of the certificate issued by Taluka Mamlatdar as extracts of the Birth and Death Register in which it is stated that the date of birth of his elder brother Shri B. K. Simpi as 18-2-1936 and the date of birth of the petitioner as 14-5-1938. The petitioner pointed out that physically, it is impossible for the petitioner to be born 14 days immediately after his elder brother. It was submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner and B. K. Simpi are not twins. The petitioner along with the said representation also produced all the original documents viz. extracts of the Birth and Death Register issued by the Taluka Magistrate, Secondary School Certificate, domicile certificate and extracts from the Birth and Death Register in respect of his elder brother Shri B. K. Simpi. It is to be noted that the elder brother of the petitioner Shri B. K. Simpi was also serving as Private Secretary to the Legal Secretary and in his service records, the date of birth was entered as 18-2-1936. Said representation was rejected vide letter dated 15-11-1990, copy of which is at Annexure C to the petition. The petitioner made a further representation to the respondent-authorities on 6-12-1990 to the Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Cooperation and Rural Development Department requesting the authorities to take appropriate decision taking into consideration all relevant facts like the extracts from the Birth and Death Register, Secondary School Certificate and the obvious fact that the petitioner could not be born 14 days after his immediate elder brother, vide Annexure-D to the petition. It appears that the State Government went deep into the matter by asking the petitioner vide letter dated 5-2-1991 to supply further information like whether the petitioner was of the requisite age when he joined the primary school, whether he had attained the appropriate age while appearing in the Secondary School Examination and University Examinations, whether he was eligible for joining the Government service and if he was eligible what was the age-limit at that time etc. The petitioner was also called upon to explain as to why he did not apply for change in date of birth within the specified time. The petitioner has produced said letter dated 5-2-1991 vide Annexure-E to the petition. The petitioner after collecting all the requisite information asked for by the Government submitted his reply on 20-5-1992 vide Annexure-F to the petition. Since many documents supplied along with the reply dated 20-5-1993 were in Kannada language, Government of Gujarat on their own called for the English version of the documents from the original authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that the English version of the information sought for was received by the Government of Gujarat in the third week of December 1993. The petitioner, in the meantime, also sent one reminder dated 25-2-1995 vide Annexure-G to the petition and since the petitioner did not receive any intimation, the petitioner moved this Court on 18-3-1994 as he was to retire on 31-3-1994. Even though the petitioner prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent from retiring the petitioner on 31-3-1994, this Court refused the interim relief on 21-3-1994. It appears that the State Government decided the representations dated 6-12-1990 and 20-5-1993 on 22-3-1994 after the Rule was issued in the petition. The communication given by the respondents to the petitioner in this regard is produced vide Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri A. V. Vohra, Under Secretary to Government, General Administration Department.