REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

EHTESHAM ULLAH KHAN Appellant

V/S

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6th January, 2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 1893 of 1994 rejecting petitioner's application for correcting the date of birth.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner joined the service of the respondents as Tailor 'D' on 20.6.1963 and his date of birth was recorded in the Service Book as 17.5.1934. Subsequently, he filed an application in 1982 to correct his date of birth as 17.2.1943 which was not accepted. Thus, he filed O.A. No. 729 of 1989 before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 15.2.1993 directing the respondents to hold an enquiry, giving opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and to examine the issue afresh. An enquiry was held and the application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 4.3.1994. Petitioner again challenged the said order before the learned Tribunal filing O.A. No. 1893 of 1994 which has been rejected vide impugned judgment and order dated 6.1.2003. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Shri K.C. Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had joined the service on 20.6.1963 and at the time of entrance in service his date of birth had been recorded as 17.5.1934. Subsequently, he passed by Matriculation in 1965 and in the Certificate of Matriculation his date of birth has been recorded as 17.2.1943 and being an admissible document in evidence his date of birth should have been corrected by the respondents as the said Certificate is admissible Under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, and being prepared in performance of the official duty by the Educational Authorities, the presumption of its correctness is always there as provided Under Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act. In the earlier judgment, the Tribunal has accepted that the date of birth recorded in the Service Book was wrong in view of the documentary evidence, i.e., High School Certificate, and therefore, by virtue of application of the doctrine of res-judicata the respondents were not permitted to hold that petitioner's date of birth had rightly been recorded in his Service Book. The judgment of the learned Tribunal is liable to set-aside.

Click here to view full judgment.

EHTESHAM ULLAH KHAN Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address