R S MEHROTRA Vs. CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A.K. Yog, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Bhatia holding brief of Shri Shared Verma for the respondent Bank. The dispute is regarding the date of birth mentioned in the Service Record of the petitioner. He joined service in the respondent Bank on February 24, 1948 and the date of birth then reported was July 4, 1926. On the basis of this date of birth the petitioner was retired from service on July 31, 1986 after completing the age of superannuationn, i.e. 60 years. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal claiming that he has been wrongly retired from the Bank service and his date of birth mentioned in the High School Certificate is September 18, 1930. The Tribunal after considering the case of both the parties has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated November 26, 1990. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner joined service on February 24, 1948 and if the date of birth as mentioned in the High School Certificate is accepted, his age at the time of joining the serive could have been only 17 years 5 or 6 days, meaning thereby that he was minor on the date of joining. Admittedly the petitioner was not Matriculate on the date of joining the service. As it has been done during service, alteration in date of birth cannot be ruled out. The Tribunal in view of these facts and circumstances has not accepted the claim of the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal is concluded by findings of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order for the observations made in para 8 of the impugned order. The submission of the learned counsel is that there is no declaratory form prescribed in the Bank which is required to be filled in at the time of joining the service and in the absence of such a form the date of birth recorded in the Service Book cannot be relied upon. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner for very cogent reasons and absence of such a form is immaterial in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even the documents possessed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India were also of the subsequent date when the petitioner joined the service.